The State of Political Science in Western Europe 3866490453, 9783866490451

Citation preview

Hans-Dieter Klingemann (ed.)

This book is dedicated to Sciences Po Paris. Hans-Dieter Klingemann

Hans-Dieter Klingemann (ed.)

The State of Political Science in Western Europe

Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen & Farmington Hills 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of Barbara Budrich Publishers. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from Die Deutsche Bibliothek (The German Library) © 2007 by Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen www.barbara-budrich.net ISBN 978-3-86649-045-3 (hardcover) eISBN 978-3-86649-825-9 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Ein Titeldatensatz für die Publikation ist bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek erhältlich. Verlag Barbara Budrich Barbara Budrich Publishers Stauffenbergstr. 7. D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen, Germany 28347 Ridgebrook, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, USA www.barbara-budrich.net

Jacket illustration by disegno, Wuppertal, Germany – www.disenjo.de Printed in Europe on acid-free paper by paper & tinta, Warsaw

Contents Preface Hans-Dieter Klingemann.................................................................................9 Foreword: The European Thematic Network in Political Science: Ten Years After Jean-Louis Quermonne..................................................................................11 A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe around the Year 2005 Hans-Dieter Klingemann...............................................................................13

Part I: Country Chapters The Current State of Political Science in Austria Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak ......................................................................43 Belgium From One to Two Political Sciences? Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier / Karolien Dezeure / Anne-Sylvie Berck / Marleen Brans...............................................................57 The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides ........................................................................73 Denmark Political Science − Past, Present and Future Mogens N. Pedersen ......................................................................................87 The Current State of Political Science in Finland Erkki Berndtson ...........................................................................................103 The Current State of Political Science: Report on the Situation in France Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye ......................................................................137 The Current State of Political Science in Germany Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer..............................................................................163

6

Political Science in Greece Georges Contogeorgis .................................................................................187 The Current State of Political Science in Iceland Ólafur Th. Hardarson..................................................................................229 The Current State of Political Science in Ireland John Coakley / Michael Laver .....................................................................243 The Current State of Political Science in Italy Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti.............................................................255 The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands Bob Reinalda ...............................................................................................275 Norwegian Political Science Tore Hansen.................................................................................................295 Political Science in Portugal Adriano Moreira ..........................................................................................311 The Current State of Political Science in Spain John Etherington / Francesc Morata...........................................................325 The Current State of Political Science in Sweden Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman....................................................................341 The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat ............................361 British Political Science in the New Millennium Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant ..................................................................381

Part II: European Developments The European Conference of National Political Science Associations: Problems and Possibilities of Co-operation Paul Furlong................................................................................................401

7

European Political Science − the Role of the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) Dirk Berg-Schlosser.....................................................................................409 The European Political Science Network Richard Topf ................................................................................................417 Index ............................................................................................................425 Authors ........................................................................................................429

Preface

The study of politics has a long history in Europe. It properly begins with Plato (428-348) and since that time can point to a stream of important contributions aimed at understanding political decision-making taking into account political psychology, political institutions, and the social bases of politics. To trace back and describe substance and geographical distribution of these contributions would be a fascinating enterprise. However, the focus of this volume is not on the past. Instead, it deals with the present state of political science in Western Europe. More precisely, it discusses political science as an academic discipline at the country level in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. A comparative description and an account of the state of the discipline at the European level are attempted in the introductory chapter. This comparative analysis is limited to four problem areas: the discipline’s institutional base, its degree systems and areas of teaching, its areas of research, and professional communication. Lack of reliable data to compare across time and countries has turned out to be a major problem. There simply is no systematic attempt to generate data which inform about such basic facts as number of students, number of professors, curricula or research programs at the various institutional levels. If this situation does not change it will become difficult for political science to cooperate and to represent its political interests in the European Area of Higher Education and Research. Academic disciplines need regular stocktaking to assure themselves of their identity and organizational structure. There are two major earlier efforts trying to chart the state of political science in Western Europe on which this volume can build: (1) a report published as a special issue of the European Journal of Political Research in 1991, edited by Kenneth Newton and Josep M. Vallès (“Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990), and (2) a 1996 report edited by Jean-Louis Quermonne, entitled “La Science Politique en Europe: Formation, Coopération, Perspectives” (Rapport Final. Projet realisé avec le soutien de la Commission Européenne (DG XII), Paris: Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris). The impact of Student unrest, critical theory and the behavioural revolution are characteristic themes of the Newton/Vallès volume. For the Quermonne Report this is true for the increasing dynamics of European cooperation. The consequences of the Bologna Process for the further development of political science as a discipline are the common concern of the current stocktaking in 2006.

10

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

The general topic has been high on the agendas of the European Political Science Network (epsNet) and of its predecessor the Thematic Network of Political Science and Public Administration. The theme was most prominently discussed at a Plenary Session dedicated to “Political Science in Europe – A European Political Science? The State of the Discipline”, chaired by Jean-Louis Quermonne, and organized for epsNet’s 2005 Plenary Conference in Paris. The current book was made possible by epsNet which provided the authors as well as the infrastructure to discuss and develop the accounts presented in the chapters to follow. This editor was fortunate enough to profit from the good services of epsNet’s Paris-based Secretariat and the generous help of its Secretary-General, Ewa Kulesza. Heartfelt thanks go to Richard Descoings, Directeur de l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, and Gérard Grunberg, Sciences Po’s Directeur Scientifique, who made it possible for me to work on this project as Directeur de Recherche Associé at Sciences Po from 2003 to 2005. The genius loci of this old and most distinguished academic institution, its wonderful urban campus composed of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century buildings located in the very heart of Paris, has been a constant source of inspiration and helped to bring the project to a good end. For all these reasons I dedicate this volume to Sciences Po, Paris. Thanks for generous support also go to the Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation), Stockholm, and its wise administrator Dan Brändström; to the Marga und Kurt MöllgaardStiftung im Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, Essen, and the counseling by Heinz-Rudi Spiegel; as well as to the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), where Jürgen Kocka and Dagmar Simon always have an open ear for still another request of one of the WZB’s emeriti. These foundations and institutions as well as Barbara Budrich, Gudrun Mouna, Kimberly Sims, and Richard Topf have contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, translation work, and publication. I am deep in their debt. Special thanks are due to Kristina Hartwig, Kenneth Newton and Richard Topf who have critically reviewed the introductory chapter.

Hans-Dieter Klingemann Berlin, December 2006

Foreword: The European Thematic Network in Political Science: Ten Years After Jean-Louis Quermonne1 Ten years ago, a conference on the evaluation of Political Science as an academic discipline was organised at Sciences Po at the request of the European Commission. Following that conference, I was asked to help with the creation of a European Thematic Network in Political Science. After much discussion, notably with the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Sciences Po Paris took my advice and decided to launch this project. Responsibility for the enterprise was put in the hands of Gérard Grunberg, ably assisted by Ewa Kulesza. Both of them succeeded brilliantly in launching the Network and I would particularly like to thank them today. Later on the Thematic Network was turned into the European Political Science Network (epsNet). Hans-Dieter Klingemann has presided over and further developed epsNet in the last years. Amongst others, these developments included a relocation of the European Political Science Network’s headquarters from Paris to the Central European University, Budapest. What better sign could we see of the unification of Europe as a continent. The older epsNet members among you will remember that when we first launched the Thematic Network, our concern was to promote political science epistemologically to ensure that it would not be confused with and therefore just criticised as European political activism. This concern is still a very real one at a time of intense constitutional debate. Our objectives in promoting epsNet were twofold. We wanted: • •

to ensure close cooperation between the European universities and academics working on the analysis of political phenomena; and to develop the study of the process of European integration as an object within our discipline.

As far as the second of these two objectives is concerned, we have observed that European political science has fallen somewhat behind as compared to American political science. In addition, we wanted to advocate a multidisciplinary approach. We therefore suggested to simultaneously take into 1

Honorary President of the French Association on Political Science.

12

Jean-Louis Quermonne

account the contributions made by theories of international relations, analyses of public policy, neo-institutionalism, and, later, the insights of political philosophy, especially the ones inspired by Emanuel Kant. It was only a little later that, working with our colleagues in the field of Law, we tried to assess the impact of the processes which were happening in the European Union using the time honoured concepts of political science. And it was then that we took note of patterns of shared sovereignty, of divided citizenship, of multiple forms of governance and of the emergence of a development, called at the time by Jacques Delors, a federation of nationstates, which was somewhere in between a confederation of states and a federal state. All of this of course meant that we were forced to continually adapt and further develop the concepts and the content of our academic curricula. The great amount of studies published in the field of European integration and multiple-level government testifies that this area can no longer be called “an unidentified political object”. Current research and teaching is proof in itself of the great progress which has been achieved over the years. The activities of epsNet and notably the links between departments, research centres and between colleagues, to which it has contributed, are a great achievement. For all these reasons, I would like to heartily thank all those who have been the artisans of networking European political science. Today, my special wishes go to epsNet. Counting the time of the Thematic Network and, subsequently, the European Political Science Network, we can now look at ten years of a rewarding experience. We hope that epsNet will continue to do its work and cooperate with the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), the European Conference of National Political Science Associations (ECNPSA), and with other academic European institutions to – in the not too far future – build a European Political Science Association. I wish all these efforts great success in moving forward and in continuing to ensure that the European universities are up to their task to educate a new generation of democratic citizens.

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe around the Year 2005 Hans-Dieter Klingemann

1 Introduction Each discipline needs regular stocktaking. To consider the past, to know where political science comes from and to explore the discipline’s own discourse – its orientation, theories, and methods - helps us to understand how it is shaped today and where it might go in the future. Both the historical and the analytical perspective have their own potential to contribute to a better understanding of “… the way in which decisions for a society are made and considered binding most of the time by most of the people” (Easton 1953: 129-148). The more recent general efforts of stocktaking include such different projects as the eight-volume “Handbook of Political Science” (Greenstein and Polsby 1975) and the one-volume “A New Handbook of Political Science (Goodin and Klingemann 1996). Currently, Oxford University Press – under the General Editorship of Robert E. Goodin – is in the process to publish ten volumes summarizing the state of the art in the major subfields of political science. These general efforts of stocktaking have often been accused to be biased towards an “American” view of the discipline, with the general “handbooks” to be agents of Americanization-cum-Transatlanticisation (Schmitter 2002: 24; for counter-arguments, see Goodin and Klingemann 2002: 41-44). However, there are also specialized volumes devoted to the state of political science in single countries such as France (e.g., Leca and Grawitz 1985), Germany (e.g., von Beyme 1986), Italy (e.g., Graziano 1987), or the United States (e.g., Finifter 1983, 1993; Katznelson and Milner 2002), or regions, such as Asia (e.g., Inogushi 2006) or Europe. For the latter I want to mention two volumes dedicated to Western Europe and another two volumes describing the emergence of political science in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989. Development of political science in Western Europe from 1960 to 1990 is the topic of a 1991 special issue of the European Journal of Political Research (vol. 20: 225-466), edited by Kenneth Newton and Josep Vallès, and of Jean-Louis Quermonne’s report of the state of the discipline bringing the evidence up to 1996. Central and Eastern European develop-

14

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

ments are described and analyzed in volumes edited by Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Ewa Kulesza, and Annette Legutke (2002), as well as Max Kaase and Vera Sparschuh (2002). These may well be the last projects looking at political science separately in the two parts of formerly divided Europe. After the many years of division and separation there is clear evidence of a growing integration of discourse and organization today (for a general account of effects of political division on political science as a discipline, cf. Almond 1990; Easton and Schelling 1991; Easton, Gunnell, and Stein 1995). In their introduction to the 1991 volume, Newton and Vallès emphasize European traditions of political science, such as normative theory, political economy and a preference for macro-comparisons. However, the authors also highlight the impact of behaviouralism originating in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Newton and Vallès (1991: 236) rightly point to the consequences of this development for the organization and status of the profession. “To take up the behavioural approach in the 1960s and 1970s was to distinguish political science from law, philosophy, history, and economics. This helped to build up independent departments of political science in the universities.” As a correlate English became the common language among political scientists “… paving the way for European links and professional identities to be created within the organizational context of the European Consortium for Political Research” (Newton and Vallès 1991: 237). Finally, Newton and Vallès (1991: 238) stress the importance of the then European Community, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and other institutions of supra-national government in Europe “… as a new, yet a relatively unexplored field for European political science.” Five years later the Quermonne Report also emphasizes the necessity of studying European integration in addition to the time-honoured subfields of political science such as political theory, political philosophy, institutions and the national polity, the study of electoral behaviour, administration, or international relations. Overall, Quermonne (1996: 15-16) observes a tendency towards thematic fragmentation which in his view, however, seems to be counteracted by the rising importance of public policy studies and, linked to it, the rediscovery of the concept of governance. He also highlights that the long-standing problem of a common identity for political science in Europe has not yet found a satisfying answer. The following five proposals he considers of particular importance to the future development of political science in Europe (Quermonne 1991: 18-20): • • • •

Solving the identity problem of European political science; Promoting a common market for political science in Europe; Developing comparative studies and the analysis of international organizations and relations; Searching for an equilibrium in the relation of cognitive and normative elements in European political science;

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

•

15

Create and invest in structures to help European political scientists to cooperate.

In many ways, the present volume can be regarded as a follow-up to the Newton-Vallès, and the Quermonne volumes. As theirs, this volume mainly relies on country reports which are rich in historical detail and tend to reveal more country specific singularities than cross-national commonalities. This is true despite this editor’s conscious effort to encourage authors to concentrate on a description of (1) institutions of higher education teaching political science, (2) degree systems and admission regulations, (3) areas of teaching, (4) areas of research, and (5) professional communication. In addition, authors were invited to add historical background, discuss current developments, and speculate about the future of political science in their own country (see Appendix). Eighteen West European countries are covered in this book all of which have been dealt with in the earlier two volumes, too, with Cyprus being the exception. Thus, readers with an interest in more historical depth are encouraged to inspect these prior analyses. The Newton and Vallès volume includes a chapter on “The European Consortium for Political Research” (Newton 1991: 445-458) describing the first steps towards organized research cooperation between European political scientists. The present volume offers three chapters devoted to networking and cooperation of teaching and research in Europe. All efforts of stocktaking have to be placed in their broader historical context. Dag Anckar and Erkki Berndtson (Anckar 1991: 239-262; Anckar and Berndtson 1987, 1988), for example, have done that with great care for the period ranging from 1960 to 1990, demonstrating the impact of society on political science, of political science on society, and of political science on the development of political science. While political science in the 1960s and 1970s cannot be discussed without taking note of student unrest, critical theory, and subsequent changes in most university systems, its current development is dominated by a global competition of systems of higher education and the emergence of a European area of higher education and research (Reinalda and Kulesza 2006). The political effort to harmonize Europe’s higher education has deeply affected all academic disciplines, including political science. The impact of the so-called “Bologna Process” is the common theme which runs through all chapters in this volume. This introduction will not summarize the development of political science in each of the individual countries. We will also not try a systematic analysis of the rise and fall of theories and methods associated with the formal, traditional, the behavioural, and the post-behavioural stages of political science (Easton 1985). If pressed hard for another evaluation of what political scientists are interested in and do in the current “post-behavioural” phase we tend to stick to our rather optimistic earlier analysis which led us to conclude that the picture “… is a happy one of a fractious discipline of bright

16

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

and enterprising scholars constantly looking over the fences that used to separate sub-disciplines. The old aspiration of a Unified Science might still remain a chimera (Neurath, Carnap, and Morris 1955). But at the turn of the century, ours looks to be at least a potentially unifiable science” (Goodin and Klingemann 1996: 26; for a slightly different evaluation, see Easton 1997). Thus, in this chapter neither do we want to retell the history of political science nor do we want to study the development of theories and methods. Rather, we want to limit our attention to the following four questions about the structure of political science which we try to answer at the European level using data describing the situation in the 18 Western European countries under study in this volume: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What is the institutional base of political science in Western Europe? How are degree systems and areas of teaching developing? What are the main areas of research? How is professional communication among political scientists progressing?

In focusing ourselves on to these questions we leave out important other topics such as funding, quality control, or mobility. Thus, the picture we paint is incomplete. In addition, we aspire to present an account of the state of political science in Europe based on quantitative data. This aspiration is seriously restricted by the availability of reliable empirical evidence. For this reason we have to admit that the data-base we have assembled is far from perfect. Despite of all these shortcomings there are also good reasons to start with a focus on the questions, phrased above, and rely on the data we have at our disposal. The main two reasons being, that our discipline will not thrive in a European area of higher education and research, and survive the global competition, if it remains unable (1) to come to grips with its identity; or, to put it in more pragmatic terms, to at least reach an agreement about its core curriculum, and (2) describe itself in statistical terms regarding the most basic dimensions of any academic discipline. While we will not be able to do justice to the identity question in this introductory section, we want to start stocktaking in quantitative terms at a West European level. If the latter is neglected we fear that political science will have a hard time in making itself heard in the concert of the academic disciplines and their effort to represent interests both at the national and the supra-national level.

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

17

2 The Institutional Base of Political Science in Western Europe Institutions hiring political scientists are a precondition for political science to exist as a discipline. Richard Rose (1990) has described the process of institutionalizing political science at European universities in terms of a shift from amateur interest to professional commitment. He pointed out that the pioneers of modern political science were necessarily amateurs, untrained as political scientists, because the subject simply did not exist in the syllabus of universities. Today, he states, political science has become a collective enterprise, a profession with well-defined standards for training and employment, based institutionally on national university systems with substantial transnational links between individuals and institutions throughout Europe (Rose 1990: 581-82). This conclusion certainly holds true on a general level. The process is well reflected in the history of the development of political science in the countries represented in this volume. However, these reports also show that an increasing number of political science professors are trained at universities abroad. This weakens the endogenous element of the argument somewhat and tends to strengthen the importance of the trans-national dimension. Countries which are latecomers in the process of institutionalization, such as Cyprus or Iceland, are not forced to hire amateurs and they are proud to advertise it. Country reports suggest that degrees of institutionalization of political science vary depending on the acceptance of our relatively “new” discipline by the “old” faculties of law, history, economics, or philosophy. Despite of this we observe that the institutionalization of political science in Europe followed a relatively similar pattern in most countries strongly influenced by the “behavioural revolution”. This pattern is more expressed in the North than in the South of Europe, with France following a more nation-specific route. French universities did not welcome warmly political science as a discipline. Thus, we do not find many political science departments, the Sorbonne (Paris I) being an exception. Rather, institutionalization has taken place circumventing the university system by setting-up Institutes of Political Studies (IEP) − among them Sciences Po, Paris, which commands a worldwide reputation for good scholarship. What are the constitutive elements or the common standards of political science? One way to answer this question is to consider the discipline’s core curriculum. What should we teach students who want to get a certificate showing that they have graduated as a BA, MA, or PhD in political science? This question does not find a simple answer. There are at least two reasons to explain this situation. First, answers to the question still reflect the divisive power of the two main different epistemological positions in political sci-

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

18

ence. On the extremes one camp stresses theory and quantitative methods while the other one relies on history and hermeneutics. Second, we observe an increasing tendency towards disciplinary differentiation. Subfields of political science which were considered integral parts of the discipline for a long time now want to create disciplines of their own. Thus, in addition to departments or institutes of “political science” and “political studies”, we are increasingly confronted with such departments or institutes as “international relations”, “European studies”, “public administration”, “political sociology”, or “political communication”, to name just a few. This bewildering variety of labels does not contribute to the identity of political science as a discipline both at the national and at the European level. Both, epistemological disagreement and tendencies towards differentiation do not contribute to strengthen the identity of the profession. The inability to provide quantitative data about key indicators of political science as an academic discipline is a consequence of this unfortunate situation. Quermonne (1996) has explicitly stated that it is almost impossible to provide quantitative data on political science as a discipline which are comparable across European countries. Newton and Vallès (1991) did not mention the issue but they do not provide quantitative data either. Official statistics simply do not provide comparable data about political science as a discipline and this is even true for such basic characteristics as number of teaching personnel, number of students, or curricula offered. This situation has persisted up to now. However, if we do not want to just add another lamento we need to have the courage to start somewhere.

2.1

Methodological Remarks

Most of the empirical data presented in the tables below have been generated by the authors of the country chapters which are assembled in this book. In a first step we tried to compile all comparative tables from the empirical material displayed in these chapters. However, it soon turned out that countryspecific particularities did not allow an easy comparison between countries. That is why − in a second step − we have asked authors to provide a limited number of data suited to cross-national comparison. It is highly likely that these data, too, are subject to substantial error margins. However, we are prepared to take this into account to start the discussion. Wherever appropriate, we will remind the reader of potential sources of imprecision or error. The data-base is limited to state universities. This is a serious restriction despite of the fact that the overwhelming number of political science students is trained in public institutions of higher learning. Private universities are excluded for pragmatic reasons alone. This is deplorable because in many instances they are the frontrunners when it comes to innovations in curricu-

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

19

lum development, and they are an important growth industry in academia. For the same pragmatic reasons we also exclude non-university based research institutions such as the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), the Juan March Institute in Madrid, or the Swedish Institute for Social Research in Stockholm to name just a few of these highly prestigious political science research institutions. This decision has to be taken into account when it comes to interpreting results of our analyses.

2.2

Empirical Results

We want to answer two questions. The first one is about departments, institutes or other organizational units offering a curriculum in political science. (1) Where are they located? How many political science professors do they employ? The second question deals with (2) the number of political science students in the various countries under study.

Empirical Results: A Supply-side Perspective To answer the first question, we have collected data about the number of full professors and associate professors teaching political science at a particular “organizational unit”. We have chosen the term “organizational unit” because it was not really clear from our sources whether teaching was delivered at the level of a faculty, a department, an institute, or any other organizational level nested in the faculty, department or institute structures. The restriction to full professors and associate professors was meant to indicate the number of senior positions permanently available for the teaching of political science. We deliberately excluded all other status groups involved in teaching, such as assistant professors or graduate students because differences between countries simply did not allow a proper comparison. We have defined “political science” to include professors of International Relations, European Studies, or Public Administration. However, classification may have been difficult in some cases. Thus, professors counting for “political science” in one country may have been counted differently in another country. Table 1 displays results. Across all 18 countries political science is offered at 307 universities, which employ 1,526 full or associate professors of political science, at 347 faculties, departments, institutes, or other organizational units. In his report, Quermonne (1996: 15) has estimated the number of the political science faculty to be about 3,500 “professors” in the mid-1990s. Our figure is not directly comparable to this earlier estimate because our counting

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

20

Table 1: Teaching political science by country, around 2005 Country United Kingdom Germany France Italy Greece Belgium Netherlands Norway Switzerland Spain Sweden Portugal Finland Denmark Austria Ireland Iceland Cyprus Total

a b

Number of professorsa 419 313 131 128 67 66 51 48 46 42 42 40 40 40 29 17 4 3 1,526

Number of organizational unitsb 93 67 41 37 5 9 12 5 9 13 12 14 13 5 4 6 1 1 347

Number of universities 71 67 41 32 5 9 9 4 9 11 12 11 10 5 3 6 1 1 307

Population size (Mio.) 59,7 82,5 59,9 57,9 11,0 10,4 16,3 4,6 7,5 42,3 9,0 10,5 5,2 5,4 8,1 4,0 0,3 0,7 395,3

Number of full professors and associate professors. Departments, institutes, or other organizational units.

is restricted to full and associate professors. We assume that each full and associate professor can count on 3 “assistants” to organize teaching (mainly assistant professors and teaching assistants). In the UK, for example, 2006 statistics show 450 political science professors but, in addition, a “faculty staff” of 1.510 (not including teaching assistants) which amounts to a ratio of 1 to 3. Thus, our overall (conservative) estimate would be a figure of roughly 4,600 political science teachers in Western Europe around the year 2005. If our assumptions are correct, we observe an increase of 1,100 professorial positions in a period of the past five years. The variance of the indicators presented in Table 2 is quite large between countries. Numbers of universities offering political science range from 1 to 73, organizational units from 1 to 93, and numbers of professors from 3 to 419. Cyprus and Iceland always mark the lower end of the scale. The upperend is always occupied by the United Kingdom. Population size is highly correlated with all these numbers (number of universities: 0.91; number of organizational units: 0.86; number of professors: 0.81; Spain is the most conspicuous outlier which has to be inspected further). Relative to population size Spain, Austria, Italy, France, and the Netherlands show a below average number of organizational units offering political science and a below average number of professors teaching political science. While the same is true for organizational units in Greece this does not apply to number of political

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

21

science professors. The discrepancy is easily explained by the high degree of concentration of political science teaching at universities such as the University of Athens and the Athens based Panteion University. Comparisons between countries hide large within-country differences. This is particularly true regarding size of departments, institutes or other organizational units offering political science. Size indicates the capacity of organizational units to function as a collective enterprise in the profession. This can easily be demonstrated by highlighting the fundamental difference of a lonely professor teaching political science at a department of law, history, sociology, or economics on the one hand, and a relatively large group of professors cooperating in a political science department or an institute of political science on the other. Only the latter group of professors would be in a position to – for example − offer a comprehensive BA in political science meeting the minimum requirement of 90 ECTS credits in political science courses as specified by the profession (Annex 22 in Reinalda and Kulesza 2006: 223-225). It is certainly very difficult to specify an absolute minimum number of professors needed to provide a comprehensive political science curriculum as mentioned above. Individuals differ in their capacity to teach and a small team inspired by a charismatic leader may even reach a top position in the rankings of political science units. However, it is probably also fair to say that it is rather difficult to offer 90 ECTS credits in political science on a permanent base with a faculty of less than three professors in political science. In this analysis we measure “size” by the number of full and associate professors teaching political science at a particular “organizational unit”. As mentioned above, this measure does not indicate absolute number of all teachers. Rather, the measure is meant to capture the institutionalized core of high-level positions available for teaching of political science. Table 2 summarizes the situation in the countries under study around 2005. Countries are arrayed by the proportion of organizational units which employ more than two professors. In Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Austria, Iceland, and Cyprus all institutions offering political science have three professors at least. Italy marks the other end of the continuum. Twenty-five of 37 Italian organizational units teaching political science (68 %) employ less than three political scientists, followed by France (56 %). In Finland (54 %) and Sweden (50 %), as well as in Ireland (50 %) and Portugal (50 %) this proportion is also quite high. Six countries form a middle group including Switzerland (11 %), the Netherlands (17 %), Germany (18 %), Norway (20 %), Spain (31 %), and the United Kingdom (33 %). Often the critical mass of three is not reached when political science professors have to teach in other than political science departments. The same picture may result from the simple fact that in some countries positions for full and associate professors are more restricted to keep up a certain hierar-

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

22

chical structure. On the other hand, if a whole university is dedicated to the broad field of political sciences − such as the universities in Athens – one should not be surprised to find more than three political science professors teaching the relevant courses. Table 2: Size of organizational units teaching political science by country, around 2005 Countries Belgium Denmark Greece Austria Iceland Cyprus Switzerland Netherlands Germany Norway Spain United Kingdom Ireland Sweden Portugal Finland France Italy Total

Total 9 5 5 4 1 1 9 12 67 5 13 93 6 12 14 13 41 37 347

Number of full and associate professors 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 17 21 22 24 26 28 - 1 2 1 - 1 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 3 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 10 2 15 10 9 7 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 2 2 4 1 4 12 19 10 17 12 7 6 - 1 2 2 2 1 1 - 1 3 - 1 1 - 1 4 2 - 2 2 - 1 2 5 3 1 3 4 3 2 - 1 2 1 15 8 5 4 2 3 1 20 5 2 3 1 - 2 74 48 48 48 38 26 21

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 9

1 7

5

1 6

5

2 1 6

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

Note: Cell entries are number of organizational units.

Our discussion is based on the assumption that individual organizational units are independent actors. This assumption is certainly true for departments offering a BA in political science. For small organizational units cooperation between universities may be a way out of this structural constraint when it comes to establish MA and PhD programmes. This option has to be kept in mind when discussing opportunities open for small groups of political scientists locally and possibilities to overcome them.

Empirical Results: A Demand-side Perspective Quermonne (1996: 15) did not try to estimate the number of political science students. Quoting Pierre Favre, he pointed out that estimates of number of students could vary by several tens of thousands in France alone depending on the decision whether or not to include law students. This argument is reiterated by Blondiaux and Déloye (cf. their chapter in this volume). Thus, it seems to be difficult to even come up with a figure of the number of political

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

23

science students in Western Europe. We have tried to calculate a rough estimate mostly relying on the figures given in the respective country chapters. In some instances, however, an estimate proved to be more complicated. As expected France turned out to be the most problematic case. Imputation was the only way to propose a comparable figure. Thus, we simply multiplied the average number of students taught by a professor in Western Europe (101 students) with the number of political science professors in France (131). In the footnote of Table 3 we have documented our sources for critical inspection. Table 3: Estimated number of students and student – teacher ratios by country, around 2005 Country United Kingdom Germany France Italy Spain Sweden Greece Austria Netherlands Ireland Denmark Norway Switzerland Belgium Walloon Vlaams Finland Portugal Iceland Cyprus Total

a

Number of studentsa 33,000 (2004) 29,080 (2005) 13,231 (2004) 12,560 (2006) 12,000 (2004) 11,220 (2004/05) 10,927 (2005) 4,434 (2003/04) 4,115 (2004) 3,700 (2006) 3,393 (2005) 3,200 (2004) 3,000 (2005) 2,652 (2003/05) 1,614 (2003/04) 1,038 (2004/05) 2,361 (2002) 2,118 (2005/06) 560 (2006) 129 (2005) 154,332

Student–teacher ratiob 78.8 92.9 101.0 98.1 285.7 267.1 163.1 152.9 80.7 217.7 84.8 66.7 65.2 40.2

59.0 53.0 140.0 43.0 116.1

The number of students is difficult to assess. Figures presented in the table above are rough estimates only. Problems relate to (1) the definition of political science as a discipline (e.g. is public administration, international relations etc. included or excluded?), and (2) to different types of students (e.g. minor students, major students, doctoral students). These problems are discussed in the various contributions to this volume. References for number of students: Austria: Appelt and Pollak, p. 48; Belgium: De Winter, Frognier, Dezeure, Berck, and Brans, p. 62, state that it is impossible to give exact figures about number of students. According to the authors reliable figures are only available for students having obtained the degree of licentiate or complementary licentiate degree, post licentiate degrees, and doctoral degrees. They suggest that available figures underestimate the overall number of students in the field of political science by about two-thirds. We have adjusted the figures accordingly to get a rough estimate (Walloon: 538 x 3; Vlaams: 346 x 3); Cyprus: Agapiou-Josephides, p. 80;

24

b

Hans-Dieter Klingemann Denmark: Pedersen, p. 92. Figures cover the universities at Aarhus, Copenhagen, and Odense, only. The author mentions that figures for the University of Southern Denmark (Odense), also cover two Master programs (Public Management; Evaluation) and a Journalism program; Finland: Berndtson, p. 116. Students majoring in political science, plus doctoral students. Berndtson states “As the Finnish social science degrees are multi-disciplinary degrees with one or two minor subjects (and with elective single courses), it is impossible to say exactly, how many students study political science annually.” Thus, the figure given for Finland is a conservative estimate; France: Blondiaux and Déloye, p. 139, state that, in terms of teaching, political science remains mostly dependent on the training offered by law faculties. 2004 official statistics show that university legal programs included 78,026 students. The vast majority of these students get an introduction to political science in their undergraduate studies. However, this is not equivalent to studying political science as a minor subject in other European countries. The authors estimate that about 3,000 students may take political science as a major subject. Thus, in terms of curricula French political science teaching is not really comparable to other countries. Taking into account what we have learned about France we make an enlighted guess for the purpose of our analysis. Without France, 1,395 professors on average taught about 101 students. Multiplying number of professors in France (131) by average number of students taught by a professor on average (101) we end up with 13,231 political science students; Germany: Schüttemeyer, p. 172. Students in political science without teachers’ training; Greece: Contogeorgis, personal communication. Undergraduate students who are attending departments which award a degree in political science plus 450 postgraduate students; Iceland: Hardarson, p. 232; Ireland: Coakley and Laver, personal communication; Italy: Giannetti, personal communication, including 60 doctoral students; Netherlands: Reinalda, p. 282. BA and MA students in political science and in public administration. Note the qualifications made in footnotes to Tables 1 and 2; Norway: Hansen, p. 299; Portugal: Moreira, personal communication; Spain: Etherington and Morata, p. 328; Sweden: Berglund and Ekman, pp. 349/50 (Table 3); Switzerland: Freymond, Platel, Voutat, p. 362. Number of students either majoring or minoring; United Kingdom: Goldsmith and Grant, p. 383. “Estimates suggest that around 3,000 students follow single honours degree programs and perhaps ten times that number following joint ones.” Thus, our crude estimate would result in a number of about 30,000 students. The ratio for the UK is misleading. As mentioned before number of faculty staff is much larger than number of professors. Based on “faculty staff”, student/staff” ratio in the UK comes down to 15:1 – a ratio much better tolerated by the Quality Assurance Guidelines. Thus, the student/staff ration comes down considerably in all other countries also when taking into account total faculty staff.

Results are presented in Table 3. By our counting rules we arrive at a total figure of roughly 154,000 political science students in Western Europe around the year 2005. This figure includes MA, BA, and PhD students. Absolute numbers range from 129 in Cyprus to an estimate of 33,000 in the United Kingdom. The variation is very much related to population size such as the indicators are which we presented in Table 1, although a little less so (0.86). Student-teacher ratios also differ significantly between countries. For example, in Belgium a political science professor teaches 40 students on average while in Spain the student-teacher ratio is seven times higher (286).

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

25

These ratios, however, should not be accepted at face value. They should be interpreted with great care taking into account all teachers available for teaching at a particular department. Including assistant professors, graduate students, and teaching staff other than full and associate professors would certainly lower the student-teacher ratio significantly.

3 Degree Systems and Areas of Teaching Today, the “Bologna Process” − which actually started in Paris in May 1998 with the Sorbonne Declaration − can be regarded as the most important political effort to harmonize Europe’s higher education (Reinalda and Kulesza 2006). Six action lines were adopted in Bologna by an intergovernmental conference of 29 ministers of education to improve competitiveness, mobility, and employability on a global scale. These action lines are currently being implemented in most European countries and they have already left a decisive impact also on political science as an academic discipline. These were the original goals: • • • • • •

Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees; Adoption of a system of study essentially based on two cycles (undergraduate and graduate); Establishment of a system of comparable credits such as the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS); Promotion of mobility; Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance of teaching and research; Promotion of the European dimension in higher education.

Other policies were debated and adopted in the follow-up conferences, such as the future design of doctoral studies (Berlin Conference, September 2003). Why is the Bologna Process so important for teaching? It is important because it has confronted political science with its old identity problem. What should a political science student learn in order to be recognized as a political scientist? What are the core modules indispensable for the training of BAs and MAs? What should a political science PhD know?

3.1

The Adoption of a New Degree System

Let us first turn to the goal to adopt easily readable and comparable degrees. It seems that – at least in a formal sense − progress has been made in this respect. Fifteen of the 18 countries under study here are in the process of

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

26

introducing or have already introduced three-year BA programmes. Spain, Greece and Cyprus are the exception still requiring four years to complete the first cycle. Needless to say that there have been heated debates on this issue. Critics have said that it is impossible to teach all a BA should know in just three years. However, it is very likely that they have lost the argument and that a three-year first cycle will carry the day in all European countries. There is a somewhat larger disagreement about the length of the second cycle which leads to the MA degree. For instance, Belgium is split on the issue. While the Walloons have opted for two additional years after completion of the BA, the Flemish universities want to grant the MA already after one more year of study. The vast majority of countries (11), however, side with the Walloons while only five countries are supportive of the Flemish one-year model (United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland). Regarding doctoral studies, all countries seem to agree that this last stage of higher education needs to be more structured as it has been until today. Doctoral students should no longer be left working alone solely dependent on a supervisor. Some departments have already started to offer first-rate programmes for doctoral students which meet the highest standards (e.g., Trinity College Dublin). However, differences between universities are still quite large and doctoral training needs much improvement (Goldsmith 2005). Table 4: Future degree structure by country, around 2005 Country Belgium: Vlaams France Ireland Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom

Future degree structurea 3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1

Austria Belgium: Walloon Denmark Finland Germany Iceland Italy Norway Portugal Sweden

3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2 3+2

Cyprus Greece Spain

4+2 4+2 4+2

a

Years needed to obtain a BA (first figure) or an MA degree (second figure).

Success or failure of the new degree structure in the various countries depends on a number of factors. For example, introducing the new degree sys-

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

27

tem will be more difficult if it has to compete with the well known and widely accepted “old” degrees. More important than this, however, will be the quality of the final “product”. How will students perform who have completed a three-, three-plus-one, or three-plus-two years, or a doctoral program? How will students, whom we grant certificates such as BAs, MAs, or PhDs in political science, do in the labour market? Only if questions like these find positive answers the current changes of degree systems and curricula will be justified.

3.2

Areas of Teaching

The Quermonne Report (1996: 15) stated that it is relatively easy to make an inventory of the objects studied by political science. “Without being complete, the list nonetheless appears relatively similar from one country to another: political theory and political philosophy; the study of electoral behaviour; comparative politics; institutions and national polity (sometimes called government); the administration and public policy; the history of political thought; local politics; the study of minorities; international relations.” The list includes most of the important subfields of political science. It is indicative, however, that it does not include methodology and statistics. This observation leads us back to the epistemological disagreements already mentioned. If political science wants to qualify as a science, the minimum requirement for a professional political scientist would be a solid command of theory and quantitative methods. If, on the other hand, the discipline wants to occupy itself with political studies, quantitative methods and statistics may turn out to be less important. European political science has reacted to the challenge of the Bologna Process. After an extensive discussion with representatives of such organizations as the European Political Science Network (epsNet) and the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), the European Conference of National Political Science Associations has proposed the following to the participants of the Berlin Conference in 2003: “To achieve the goals of the Bologna Declaration in political science, we recommend there should be some minimum requirements in the teaching of political science. At present, we focus on the minimum requirements of a BA that comprises 180 ECTS, usually taught over three years” (Reinalda and Kulesza 2006: 224). The proposal suggests that students should follow courses in political science with a value of at least 90 ECTS credits. Such credits should be achieved by taking the following subject areas: • • •

Political theory, History of political ideas; Methodology (including statistics); Political system of one’s own country and of the European Union;

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

28

• • • •

Comparative politics; International relations; Public administration and policy analysis; Political economy and political sociology.

This proposal can be considered a big step forward in defining the core subjects of a basic political science curriculum. We take note that it explicitly mentions methodology and statistics. It also states that International Relations, Public Administration, Political Economy, and Political Sociology are integral parts of the study of political science and belong under the general roof of the discipline. While differentiation and specialization are characteristic of research, teaching of political science has to include the full range of its major subfields. This plea for a comprehensive teaching program does not square well with the fact that more than a third of the organizational units offering political science courses employ less than three full or associate professors. However, as we have shown above this situation differs a great deal across countries. Where political science is taught as a minor in faculties such as law, economics, or sociology it is difficult to live up to the proposition of the European Conference of National Political Science Associations. While cooperation between universities may be a promising way to develop quality programs for MA or PhD studies, it is next to impossible to offer a BA without adequate local resources.

4 Areas of Research Research programs tend to be much more specialized than teaching. One has to recognize that most research areas are characterized by specialization, fragmentation, and hybridization. This “heterogeneity”, as Mattei Dogan (1996: 97) puts it, “… has been greatly nourished by exchanges with neighbouring disciplines through the building of bridges between specialized fields of the various social sciences.” This process drives the discourse on concepts, theories, and methods. What is high on the research agenda of political science is mostly linked to the problem agenda of the political and societal context in which it is embedded. Because of their specialized nature it is difficult to summarize the many research programs. It is also a challenge to try to describe them at the country level. What would be really needed is an analysis on the level of the individual research unit. Unfortunately, such information is not available. Thus, we have to rely on the general remarks found in the country chapters. Table 5.1 summarizes broad areas of research. Results must be interpreted with care. First, as we have already mentioned, describing the situation at the country level hides vast differences

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

29

between single research institutions. Second, many of the most productive research institutions outside the university system are not systematically included in our analysis. Table 5.1: Areas of research: An overall summary Rank Research area 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 4 5

Number of times mentioned 16 13 13 13 12 6 4

Political system of one’s own country and of the European Union International relations Policy analysis; public administration Political sociology Political theory; history of political ideas Comparative politics Methodology (including statistics)

Table 5.2: Areas of research as mentioned in National Reports, about 2005

Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland U.K. Total

Political Theory; History of Political Ideas X

X X X X X X X

Methodol- Political Compara- InternaPublic Political Toogy System of tive Politics tional Administra- Economy; tal (including one’ s own Relations tion and Political statistics) country and Policy Sociology of the EU Analysis X X 3 X X X 3 X X 2 X X X X 4 X X 3 X X X X X X 7 X X X X X 6 X X X X 5 X 1 X X X X 5 X X X 4 X X X X 5

X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

2 2 4 6 7

X 16

X 6

X 13

X 13

X 13

7 77

X X

X X

X X

X 12

X 4

X

X

The overall result does not hold any surprises. Most research projects are directed toward one’s own political system and the European Union. International Relations, Policy Analysis, Public Administration, and Political Sociology/Political Economy occupy a second rank followed by Political Theory, History of Political Ideas. The result also reflects a low interest in Methodol-

30

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

ogy as a subfield of research. Comparative Politics seem to trail behind. However, it is likely that this result is partly due to the difficult distinction between Comparative Politics and such subfields as the Political System of the European Union or International Relations. The European Union as a supra-national system of government is well represented on the research agenda. It should be noted that the European Commission actively supports the area of European Studies. This is not only true for funding large-scale research programs. At least, as much has been achieved in the field of European studies by granting Jean-Monnet Chairs to universities. In 1990, 46 Jean Monnet Chairs were supported by the EU at European universities. This figure rose to 249 in 1995, 493 in 2000 and reached 623 in 2005. This is a unique resource not just for teaching but also for research in the field of European political and social development. Quermonne (1996: 16) has mentioned a gradual yet striking drift of the objects of study since 1960. While originally focused primarily on modes of government, the political parties, and electoral behaviour, he sees the discipline to move to other fields such as the analysis of discourse, the study of symbols, the emergence of minorities, the expressions of pluralism, the mechanisms favouring elite reproduction and threats to the environment. There is certainly much reason to recognize this development. However, a closer look reveals that political science has not abandoned research on modes of government, political parties, and electoral behaviour. Rather, we observe a process of differentiation in the research agenda of European political science which adds new perspectives but does not give up old ones – a trend which is visible on a global scale as well (Goodin/Klingemann 1996: 14-15). The breakdown of autocratic regimes across the world and in particular of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe has stimulated a variety of research programs devoted to problems of transition from autocratic to democratic rule and consolidation of young democracies. This topic is not specifically highlighted in the broad categories used to summarize the research agenda. However, it is worth mentioning because these topics are also high on the research agenda of political scientists in Central and Eastern Europe (Klingemann et al. 1994, 2000; Klingemann 2002; Klingemann et al. 2002).

5 Professional Communication Professional communication is essential for the progress of science. Critical debate of new insights is indispensable. Providing an infrastructure for this discourse is one of the major functions of political science associations.

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

31

In all countries under study we find professional associations of political scientists. Cyprus is an exception but efforts are being made to establish a political science association in this country, too. Table 6 shows a total number of members in national political science associations of about 10,000 around the year 2005. Membership figures range from 130 in Portugal to 1650 in the case of the United Kingdom’s Political Studies Association. Absolute numbers tend to co-vary with population size (0.61). National political science organizations are essential for at least two reasons. First, they ensure professional communication within the discipline and of political science with the national society at large in the respective mother tongue. Second, national political science associations represent the interests of the profession in national academia and national politics. Table 6: Membership in National Political Science Associations, around 2005 National Political Science Associations Österreichische Gesellschaft für Politikwissenschaft Politologisch Instituut (Belgium, Vlaams) Association Belge de Science Politique – Communauté Française Cyprusa Danish Political Science Associationb Finnish Political Science Association Association Francaise de Science Politique Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft Hellenic Association of Political Science Icelandic Political Science Association Political Studies Association of Ireland Italian Political Science Association Dutch Political Science Association Norwegian Political Science Association Portuguese Political Science Association Spanish Association of Political and Administrative Science Swedish Political Science Association Swiss Political Science Association Political Studies Association of the UK British International Studies Association Total

a b

Members 500 280 147 400 400 600 1,400 260 200 200 280 330 500 130 500 250 736 1,650 965 9,728

Foundation of a political science association in Cyprus is currently under way. The Danish Political Science Association as well as the Politologisch Instituut; (Flemish association) only have collective members. Mogens N. Pedersen and Lieven De Winter have kindly provided a rough estimate in terms of individual membership.

Regarding professional communication within the discipline all national political science associations regularly organize conferences and meetings. And they all provide journals for publication of research results in the respective national language. Kaase (2007) reports an estimated number of 40,000

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

32

Table 7: Professional communication: National political science journals Country Austria

Belgium

Cyprus Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland Ireland Italy

Journals Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft Contemporary Austrian Studies SWS-Rundschau Res Publica Studia Diplomatica Burger bestuur & beleid Dids op Maatschappelijk Gebied Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée Transitions Cyprus Review Politica GRUS Politik Politiikka Hallinnon tutkimus Politiikan tutkimus & yhteiskunta Revue Francaise de Science Politique Politix – Revue des sciences socials du politiques Culture et Conflits – Sociologie politique de l’international Pole Sud Critique Internationale Raison Politiques Politique Européenne Politische Vierteljahresschrift Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft Zeitschrift für Politik Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen Leviathan Hellenic Review of Political Science Political Science The Parliamentary Review The Constitution Democracy and Nature Administrative Review Administrative Reform Leviathan Review of the European Communities Defense and Diplomacy Strategy Utopia Web-journal of the Institute of Public Administration and Politics Irish Political Studies Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica Teoria Politica Scienza Politica Rivista di Scienza dell’ Administrazione Comunicazione Politica

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

33

Table 7: (cont’d) Country Italy

Netherlands Norway Portugal

Spain

Sweden Switzerland UK

Journals Comunicazione Politica Osservatorio Elettorale Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche Acta Politica Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift Internasjonal Politikk Revista de História das Ideas Revista de Estudos do Século XX Revista Nova Cidadania Estratégia Revista de Ciencia Politica Nacao e Defesa Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica Revista de Estudios Politicos Gestión y Análisis de Politicas Publicas Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift SWEPSA Politologen Revue suisse de science politique Manuel de la politique suisse British Journal of Politics and International Relations Political Studies Political Studies Review Politics Review of International Studies Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties

political scientists around the world regularly working on political science subjects and publishing in more than 1,000 political science journals mostly in their native language. We have asked authors of country chapters to name political science journals. Table 7 lists the 73 journals mentioned. While this compilation is most certainly incomplete it demonstrates that in Europe, too, there is an open door to publication in one’s own language in all countries. The internet provides the technical possibility to launch web-journals and has made it possible even for small political science communities such as in Iceland to have a national political science journal. Thus, in the times of globalization and European integration national political science associations are of vital importance. They cannot be replaced by supra-national organizations because they are the decisive pillar in the national context. This statement is not incompatible with the observation that at the same time international cooperation is growing fast. In great numbers European political scientists regularly travel to the meetings of the American Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association. However, as far as Europe is concerned, there is also cooperation on a regional scale. The Nordic countries cooperate in the framework of the Nordic Political Science Association; the small Flemish- and French-speaking politi-

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

34

cal science associations seek closer cooperation with their Dutch, French and Swiss counterparts; but even the larger German-speaking associations organize common meetings from time to time. Most important for the integration of political science at the European level is the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) and – although with much less weight − the European Political Science Network (epsNet). Because of their importance we have commissioned special chapters on these two organizations (see chapters by Berg-Schlosser and Topf). This relieves us from the task of describing their activities in detail in this introduction. We want to underscore, however, the overwhelming importance of the ECPR for integrating research activities and paving the way to the broader English language based discourse in European political science. Conferences and research projects organized by the ECPR assume the command of English as do the ECPR supported Essex Summer School and the European Journal of Political Research. Getting used to present and discuss ideas in this “lingua franca” has helped many political scientists to become involved on a broader European and global scale. Table 8: Professional communication: Membership in the European Consortium for Political Research by country, November 2006 Country

Organizational density by country based on organizational units Total number of ECPR offering political science (absolute number in parentheses) members by country Denmark 100 ( 5) 8 Iceland 100 ( 1) 1 Norway 100 ( 5) 13 Sweden 92 (11) 15 Ireland 83 ( 5) 5 Greece 80 ( 4) 4 Belgium 78 ( 7) 9 Austria 75 ( 3) 5 Spain 69 ( 9) 17 Netherlands 67 ( 8) 12 Switzerland 56 ( 5) 5 UK 56 (52) 58 Finland* 54 ( 7) 5 Germany 52 (35) 43 Italy 38 (14) 15 France 22 ( 9) 12 Portugal 7 ( 1) 3 Cyprus 0 ( -) 1 Total 52 231

a

More than one organizational unit covered by the respective members.

Table 8 gives an example of the density of the network of ECPR member institutions. In 2006 the ECPR counted 286 member institutions in the 18 countries studied here. Comprising 40 percent of its member institutions the United Kingdom (62 members) and Germany (51 members) dominate the

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

35

ECPR. Of the 347 organizational units offering political science courses 179 are also ECPR members (52 %). Organization density varies greatly between countries. The picture shows a high organization density of the ECPR in the Nordic countries and a low organization density in Southern Europe with Italy, France, Portugal, and Cyprus trailing behind. If participation in the English-language European discourse is an important condition to meet and keep up common standards of the profession, the universities in these latter countries have to catch up. EpsNet is the much younger sister of the ECPR networks European political science with an emphasis on teaching. Only time can tell whether what it has on offer will meet the demand of a discipline struggling with the implementation of the Bologna action lines.

6 Conclusion In this introduction we have attempted a comparative description of basic parameters of political science as a discipline in Western Europe around the year 2005. The analysis was limited to four structural characteristics: the discipline’s institutional base, its degree structure and areas of teaching, areas of research, and professional communication. Lack of reliable and comparable data made it difficult to even reach the goal of good description. Within this constraint we have shown (1) the variation in degree of institutionalization of professional political science at the university level (more precisely: the level of the organizational units); (2) the impact of the Bologna process on the implementation of harmonized BA, MA, and PhD degrees; (3) a growing focus of research programs on European integration, the European Union’s system of governance, as well as transition from autocratic to democratic rule; and (4) the decisive effort of political science in Europe to establish networks of communication and cooperation. Currently, the National Political Science Associations and their European Conference (see the contribution of Paul Furlong in this volume) as well as the ECPR and epsNet (see the contributions of Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Richard Topf in this volume) are the three pillars on which European political science currently rests. No doubt, these pillars are of differing strength but they are all working to improve cooperation of political science in Europe. Whether, in the end, these organizations will cooperate to form a European Political Science Association remains to be seen. Setting aside this great issue, however, it seems important for the discipline to recognize that the development of a reliable data-base describing its major characteristics in a comparable way is a sine qua non to tackle the identity issue and the task of interest representation at the national, the European, and the global level.

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

36

Appendix Letter to authors of country chapters The Current State of Political Science in Western Europe Aspects which should be covered in each national report

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

A short sketch of the emergence of political science as an academic discipline.

1.2

Current Developments

Impact of and potential controversies about the “Bologna” Process.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

A quantitative account of the development of public and private universities as well as “other” institutions offering political science. Number and names of universities; development of teaching personnel (professors, associate professors, assistants etc.).

2.2

Degree System and Admission Regulations

Degree structure (Doctorates, Diploma, MA, BA; major/minor etc.); entry requirements, tuition fees; number and type of political science students etc.

2.3

Areas of Teaching

Major curricula patterns; status of political theory and of political epistemology, methodology, and statistics. Agreement on an indispensable core of political science as an academic discipline etc. Are there any dominant currents in the teaching of political science today? Earlier studies have tried to describe them as follows:

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

37

Political theory Political philosophy Political epistemology and methodology Political history Political economy Public policy Political sociology Political psychology Comparative politics European politics National politics Area studies International relations Other fields of political science: specify. Are there any major textbooks used? Which ones?

2.4

Research

Links between teaching and research; research funding etc. Are there any dominant theoretical approaches in political research? Earlier studies have tried to describe them as follows: Historical approaches Hermeneutics Phenomenology Systems theory Neo-institutionalism Structural-functionalism Rational-choice theory Game theory Cybernetics Behaviouralism Political economy Marxist analysis Existentialism Other theoretical approaches: specify. Are there any major research centres? Which ones?

2.5

Professional Communication

Journals and periodicals; conferences. National and international cooperation (National Political Science Associa-

38

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

tion; ECPR; epsNet; IPSA; other international associations etc.). Membership in national and international associations. How would you evaluate the probability of the emergence of a European Political Science Association?

3 The Future of Political Science (in your country) Development of professional and disciplinary relevance; chances of students of political science on the job market.

References Almond, Gabriel (1990): A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science, London: Sage Publications. Anckar, Dag (1991): “Nordic political science: trends, roles, approaches,” in: Kenneth Newton / Josep M. Vallès (eds.): Political Science in Western Europe, 19601990, special issue of European Journal of Political Research 20: 239-262. Anckar, Dag / Erkki Berndtson (1987): “Introduction: Towards a study of the evolution of political science,” special issue of International Political Science Review, The evolution of political science: Selected case studies 8: 5-7. Anckar, Dag / Erkki Berndtson (eds.) (1988): Political Science between Past and the Future, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association. Beyme, Klaus von (ed.) (1986): „Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,“ Politische Vierteljahresschrift, special issue 17, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag: 12-26. Dogan, Mattei (1996): “Political Science and the Other Social Sciences,” in: Robert E. Goodin / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.): A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 97-130. Easton, David (1987): “The Future of the Postbehavioral Phase in Political Science,” in: Kristen Renwick Monroe (ed.): Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press: 13-46. Easton, David (1985): “Political Science in the United States: Past and Present,” International Political Science Review 6: 133-152. Easton, David (1953): The Political System. An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, New York: Knopf. Easton, David / John G. Gunnell / Michael B. Stein (eds.) (1995): Regime and Discipline. Democracy and the Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Easton, David / John G. Gunnell / Luigi Graziano (eds.) (1991): The Development of Political Science, London: Routledge. Easton, David / Corinne S. Schelling (eds.) (1991): Divided Knowledge, Across Disciplines, Across Cultures, Newbury Park: Sage. Favre, Pierre avec la collaboration de Nadine Dada (1996): “La science politique en France, “ in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): La Science Politique en Europe: For-

A Comparative Perspective on Political Science in Western Europe

39

mation, Coopération, Perspectives. Rapport Final. Projet realisé avec le soutien de la Commission Européenne (DG XII), Paris: Institut d’Ètudes Politiques de Paris: 214-249. Finfter, Ada W. (ed.) (1983): Political Science: The State of the Discipline, Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Finifter, Ada W. (ed.) (1993): Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Goldsmith, Michael (ed.) (2005): Doctoral Studies in Political Science – A European Comparison, Budapest: epsNet. Goodin, Robert E. / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) (1996): A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodin, Robert E. / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (1996): “Political Science: The Discipline,” in: Robert E. Goodin / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.): A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 3-49. Goodin, Robert E. / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2002): “In defense of the new handbook: A comment on criticism by Schmitter and Gunnell,” European Political Science 1 (2): 41-44. Graziano, Luigi (ed.) (1987): La Scienca Politica Italiana, Milano: Felterinellei. Greenstein, Fred I. / Nelson W. Polsby (eds.) (1975): Handbook of Political Science, 8 vols. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Inogushi, Takashi (2005): “Envisioning the Asian Consortium for Political Research (ACPR) in the New Century,” Political Science in Asia 1: 1-3. Kaase, Max (2007): “Political Participation,” in: Russell J. Dalton / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Katznelson, Ira / Helen Milner (eds.) (2002): Political Science: The State of the Discipline III, Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. McKay, David (1991): “Is European political science inferior to or different from American political science?” in: Kenneth Newton / Josep M. Vallès (eds.): Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990, special issue of European Journal of Political Research 20: 225-446. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (2002): “Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe: National Development and International Integration,” in: Max Kaase / Vera Sparschuh (eds., co-edited by Agnieszka Wenninger): Three Social Science Disciplines in Central and Eastern Europe. Handbook on Economics, Political Science and Sociology (1989-2001), Bonn/Berlin/Budapest: GESIS/Social Science Information Centre and Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study: 206212. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter / Ekkehard Mochmann / Kenneth Newton (eds.) (1994): Political Research in Eastern Europe, Bonn/Berlin: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter / Ekkehard Mochmann / Kenneth Newton (eds.) (2000): Elections in Central and Eastern Europe. The First Wave, Berlin: edition sigma. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter / Ewa Kulesza / Annette Legutke (eds.) (2002): The State of Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe, Berlin: edition sigma. Leca, Jean / Maurice Grawitz (eds.) (1985): Traité de Science Politique, 4 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

40

Hans-Dieter Klingemann

Neurath, Oskar / Rudolf Carnap / Charles W. Morris (eds.) (1955): International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Foundations of the Unity of Science, 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newton, Kenneth (1991): “The European Consortium for Political Research,” special issue of the European Journal of Political Research 20: 445-458. Newton, Kenneth / Josep M. Vallès (eds.) (1991): Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990, special issue of the European Journal of Political Research 20. Newton, Kenneth / Josep M. Vallès (1991): “Introduction: Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990,” in: Newton, Kenneth / Josep M. Vallès (eds.): Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990, special issue of the European Journal of Political Research 20: 225-446. Reinalda, Bob / Ewa Kulesza (2006): The Bologna Process – Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education, Opladen: Barbara Budrich (2nd revised edition). Quermonne, Jean-Louis (1996): “The State of Political Science in Europe: Preliminary Conclusions and Prospects,” in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): La Science Politique en Europe: Formation, Coopération, Perspectives. Rapport Final. Projet realisé avec le soutien de la Commission Européenne (DG XII), Paris: Institut d’Ètudes Politiques de Paris: xxx-xxx. Rose, Richard (1990): “Institutionalizing Professional Political Science in Europe: A Dynamic Model,” European Journal of Political Research 18: 581-603. Schmitter, Philippe C. (2002): “Seven (Disputable) Theses Concerning the Future of ‘Transatlanticized’ or ‘Globalized’ Political Science,” European Political Science 1 (2): 23-40.

Part I Country Chapters

The Current State of Political Science in Austria Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

Political science as an independent academic discipline did not exist in Austria prior to 1963.1 The first chairs of political science were established in the late 1960s. However, political science as an independent field of study emerged only after 1971. Like in many other countries introduction of political science has been a political issue. The late institutionalization of political science in Austria comes as a surprise in light of Austria’s massive intellectual contribution to the social sciences prior to 1934. Law and economics, for example, enjoyed world-wide reputation since the beginning of the 20th century. Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek, or Hans Kelsen – to name just a few – defined the cutting edge of their disciplines. Karl Renner, Otto Bauer, or Max Adler prominent Austro-Marxists – contributed to the political debate as intellectuals in their own right. Not to speak of Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalytic theory, who rightly is regarded one of the most influential social scientists. The development of empirical social science has been furthered by Austrian scholars such as Carl and Charlotte Buehler in the 1920s. Marie Jahoda’s and Hans Zeisel’s2 study “Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal” (Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community) published in 1932 will remain a touchstone in the history of social science. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, inspired by the Bühlers and cooperating with Marie Jahoda and Hans Zeisel, founded the Austrian Research Unit for Economic Psychology in 1931. Im1

2

For an earlier report, some of which has been incorporated in the present document, see Appelt (1996: 105-130). For further presentations and critical reflection concerning the development of the Austrian political science see: Gerlich (1993); Höll/Weninger (1994), Karlhofer/Pelinka (1991), Kramer (2004), Pelinka (1995), Pelinka (2004), Sickinger (2004). In the first edition Paul Lazarsfeld was not named as a co-author.

44

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

portant insights about opinion formation and economic behaviour have been achieved by scholars active in this research unit (Zeisel 1969). It should be added that Lazarsfeld himself was a staunch supporter of socialist ideas and took sides in political issues of the day. The general public – not just academia – should benefit from the results of social science research – an idea already pioneered by other socialist intellectuals such as Otto Neurath. Another important step in the advancement of social science was the creation of a special section for social science studies by the Vienna Chamber of Labour. Among the members of this new section was Käthe Leichter. In her study about female home workers “So leben wir …” (That’s how we live…) she had invented and applied many social science research methods which became international standard only after 1945. Austria’s intellectual and academic tradition came to a grinding halt in 1934, when most intellectuals – especially those being Jewish or affiliated with the socialists and communists – had to leave the country or were silenced. In 1938, National Socialists started to expel or liquidate them. Among many others also Käthe Leichter was killed in a concentration camp just for being a Jew; Marie Jahoda, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Hans Zeisel left Austria in time to escape Nazi murder (Stadler 1987). In contrast to Germany, Austria did not experience “re-education” after 1945. In Germany re-education gave political science a boost but it was also introduced as a normative enterprise (“Demokratie-Wissenschaft”) which turned out to be a mixed blessing (Arndt 1978). On the one hand a lot of chairs for political scientists were created to educate civics teachers. On the other hand this development effectively blocked the establishment of an empirical analytical political science for a long time (Klingemann 2002). Whatever the reason, the allied forces did not insist on an Austrian version of re-education. Thus, social science in Austria did not participate systematically in the creation of the normative basis of the country’s new political system (Höll/Weninger 1994). After 1945 academic life in Austria was largely paralyzed. Important social scientists had been either killed, expelled, or discredited because of their collaboration with the Nazi-regime. In addition, no particular efforts were made to welcome home those who had to leave the country. Political conviction seemed to carry more weight than scientific excellence. Emigrants known to have belonged to the left-wing faction of the socialist party (the Austro-Marxists) were not particularly encouraged to return to Austria after 1945. The post-war leadership of the socialist party was now of a more pragmatic orientation and did not want to import members which could easily become inner-party critics. In part, such emigrants were also accused to be responsible for the party’s defeat in 1934. Anti-semitic ressentiments have played a role, too. The conservative Christian People’s Party (ÖVP) had re-arranged itself with the less involved Austrian Nazis (“Mitläufer”) and the Ministry of Education − under conservative

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

45

leadership − did not want to “irritate” the Catholic Church by opening Austrian universities to leftist emigrants. Even empirically oriented (“American”) social scientists were not exempted from suspicion. A public discussion of the Austrian part played in the Third Reich was not particularly wanted in the early days after World War II (Höll/Weninger 1994). However, the evaluation of the political situation is not clear-cut. On the one hand Austria saw a restauration of Catholicism, in particular a restauration of traditional patriarchal family values (Appelt 1996). On the other hand social partnership was developed and practiced which was compatible with both socialism and Catholic doctrine (e.g., Rerum Novarum). Thus, the model of social partnership between capital and labor was supported by the political left and by the political right. In retrospect it turned out to be a successful model of conflict management based on elite consensus. However, critics say that this type of Grand Coalition politics was not helpful to institutionalize political participation and a competitive representative democracy in Austria. Despite of this, there was much hostility regarding institutionalization of political science at Austrian universities in this early period. The powerful faculties of theology, law, medicine, history or economics did not support the project, to say the least. Most representatives of these normative branches of social science and humanities – the so-called “Ordnungswissenschaften” – were largely opposed and sceptical. They disputed the “scientific” nature of political science. Many feared that political science would turn out to be “critical” and inspired by leftist theories which would destroy traditional values and power structures. The more instrumental goal of the opposition was to block the entry of a discipline whose students might challenge their position in the academic labour market. Confronted with this situation many of the best social scientists went abroad again. It was also argued that Austria would not need political scientists at all. The new institutes for political science, which were in the planning stage, were accused to be “beach-heads to conquer the universities” and would become a serious danger for freedom of teaching and research as well as a grave threat for social and political order. However, as mentioned above, these arguments could also be seen as a strategy – especially by the law faculties - to defend their monopoly in staffing public administration and as guarding their dominant position of a “law-based interpretation of state and society” (Pekinka 1971). Apart from these disciplinary conflicts, a conservative tendency prevailed in society and politics (Karlhofer/Pelinka 1991; Höll/Weninger 1994). A report dealing with the institutionalization of political science in Austria – written by a lawyer – called it a “seditious activity” (Sickinger 2004). There was a fear that political science, as an academic discipline, would in effect produce large numbers of Marxist academics who had nothing better to do than demonstrate against the state and the established order. What had happened at the Freie Universität Berlin in the end of

46

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

the 1960s, it was warned, would then also happen in Vienna. However, one should not forget that it was a lawyer, René Marcic, who helped to launch political science at the University of Salzburg after coming back from the University of Munich. He had experienced the introduction of political science at that university and was convinced that it could make a useful contribution also at Austrian universities. In the early years after 1945 social research was almost entirely conducted outside universities. Two public organizations, linked with the two big Austrian political camps, were of particular importance. The Social Science Working Group (“Sozialwissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft”) was close to the conservative camp. The Social Science Study Group (“Sozialwissenschaftliche Studiengesellschaft”), on the other hand, had close ties to the Austrian Labour Union. These institutes produced a number of interesting studies and constituted a lobby for the introduction of political science as a discipline at the universities. In addition, since 1958 the Vienna Chamber of Labour published important social science reports based on empirical study. The founding of the most important social science institute outside the universities, the Institute of Advanced Studies (“Institut für Höhere Studien”, HIS) has to be seen in this general context.

1.2

University Reforms and the Institutionalization of Political Science in Austria

Until the end of the 1950s economic policy enjoyed the highest priority in Austrian politics. In contrast, development of universities ranked low on the agenda of governments. Resources of universities were rather limited and did not allow much room for independent action. As a consequence, Austria had to import knowledge from foreign countries, especially from the US (Fröschl 1974). The 1950s and 1960s were characterized by rising prosperity, fast economic growth and rising living standards. In this situation education policies got more attention (Melchior 1990). A “Committee for University Affairs” was established in 1964 with the explicit goal to improve investment in research and development which had been mostly neglected by Austrian industry. In addition, the Austrian government signed a treaty with the OECD in December 1963 to jointly design a programme for the development of the educational sector. The same year saw the foundation of The Institute for Advanced Studies (HIS). The HIS was established outside university structures and it was the first Austrian academic institution to offer a curriculum in political science. Paul F. Lazarsfeld can be considered the driving force behind this enterprise. Visiting Vienna in 1958 as an envoy of the Ford Foundation Lazarsfeld was entrusted with the task to evaluate opportunities for the advancement of so-

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

47

cial science in Austria. It is indicative for the attitude towards social science in this country that it took five years until the HIS could start its activities in four departments one of them a political science department. Today there can be no doubt that the HIS has had and still has a major impact on the development of the discipline (Fleck 2000). This is true for educating generations of political scientists and broadening the scope of political research which – in the beginning – had been dominated by behavioural studies (Sickinger 2004). In a government declaration dated 20 April 1966 chancellor Klaus, Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), summarized the government’s goals in education policy. Klaus emphasized the rising demand for an academically trained workforce. He argued that in order to be prepared to meet this demand the educational sector needed a clear legal framework. Only this would enable the institutions of higher learning to cope with the increasingly fast changes of scientific progress. This led to the General University Law of July 1966 (“Allgemeines Hochschulstudiengesetz”, 15. Juli 1966), which structured the further development of the university sector. Examples of its consequences are the establishment of the University for Social and Economic Sciences in Linz (Upper Austria) in the same year and the passing of a bill concerning research funding in the following year. After winning an absolute majority in 1970, the Socialist Party began to legislate and implement a far-reaching university reform. Among the changes were the abolishment of tuition fees and the opening up of bodies of decision-making to student participation. The installation of a Ministry for Science and Research can be regarded a highly visible move to underscore the importance the government accorded to educational policy. In the period between 1970 and 1974 additional legal, financial, and administrative measures were introduced. In this period the budget for science and research increased by 20 percent per year. Political Science also profited from these policies. In 1971, it was established at Austrian universities as an independent discipline. Thereafter political science was no longer just tolerated and taught as a minor in the faculties of law or economics. Institutes of political science were founded at the universities of Vienna and Salzburg. However, it still took political science at these two universities until 1985 to start regular study programs. The year 1975 saw a new university law (Universitätsorganisationsgesetz) aiming to improve conditions for research in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Although mainly aimed at the natural sciences the new regulations also helped to improve the situation of social science at the universities. Most important, the new law offered political science the option to move to the newly established social science faculties, thus, gaining independence from the law faculties. The following decade was characterized by modernization and consolidation. In the 1990s, another set of structural re-

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

48

forms was carried out which gave universities more independence and more autonomy in financial matters. Instead of being forced to apply for financial resources for each single item universities now got bloc grants about which they could decide in their own right. Under the old regime universities had to give the money back to the state if they were unable to spend it within the limits of the fiscal year. Hardly an incentive for efficient planning the situation has been changed to allow for a more adequate time horizon to operate the budget. It is worth noting that the allocation of financial resources is not linked to the number of students (Paster 2000). Currently, Austria supports 22 state universities; six of which are universities for arts. Nine of the 22 state universities are located in Vienna. In the academic year of 2004, enrolment amounted to a total of 168,2593 Austrian students. 53 percent of the students are female; average age is 24 years. In addition to state universities there are five private universities. Their student body comprises 1,369 students, 858 of them Austrians. In recent years several new schools have been established for specialized professional education (“Fachhochschulen”). Their programs include multimedia design, library science or environmental engineering. The number of such schools is on the increase as are the specific areas of study they are developing. Currently they educate 19,721 students and offer 145 different programs (“Fachhochschulstudiengänge”). 40,697 foreign students attended Austrian institutions of higher education in the academic year 2003/04. Foreigners are differently distributed by type of institution: 16 percent are enrolled at regular universities, 41 percent at the universities of arts, and 37 percent at private universities. The new schools (“Fachhochschulen”) have attracted 870 foreign students. Of the Austrian students only 25 percent could concentrate exclusively on their studies. The vast majority has to work part time to earn their living. The winter term 2003/04 saw a total of 4,434 political science students, of which 2,546 were male, 1,978 female. 3,563 (1,970 male, 1,593 female) were Austrian citizens, 871 foreigners (468 male, 385 female). In the academic year 2002/03 a total of 215 political science students finished their studies with an academic degree (112 male, 103 female) among them 50 foreigners (25 male, 25 female).4

1.3

Current Developments

As mentioned above Austrian universities were granted more autonomy by a university reform of the year 2002 (Universitätsgesetz 2002). They conclude 3 4

Figures from 2004. Hochschulstatistik 2003/04, ed. by Statistik Austria, Wien 2005, download at: ftp://www. statistik.at/pub/neuerscheinungen/2005/hochschul03_04.pdf.

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

49

general (financial) agreements with the federal ministry of education while the university boards and the rectors are responsible to allocate funds for teaching and research as well as for administration. Universities are also responsible for the implementation of degrees in the framework of the socalled Bologna Process. Thus, restructuring is flexibly handled by each university and in no way centralized nationally. At the University of Innsbruck, three different degrees (Bachelor, Master, Doctorate) will be introduced in 2006. A Bachelor degree can be obtained after three years of studies, another two years are necessary for the Master, and doctoral studies will require an additional three years (not definitively decided yet). At the Universities of Salzburg and Vienna the Bachelor degree is expected to be introduced in 2006/07. In Innsbruck and Salzburg, the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) is already introduced in political science as well as in Economics and Sociology.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

The following university departments are teaching political science as a full course:5 • • • •

University of Vienna: Institute for Political Science (IPW): http://www.univie.ac.at/politikwissenschaft/ University of Vienna: Department of Government http://www.univie.ac.at/Politikwissenschaft-Sowi/ University of Salzburg, Institute for Political Science http://www.sbg.ac.at/pol/index.php University of Innsbruck, Institute for Political Science http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c4/c402/

In addition to these universities, political science research is conducted in the following organizations: •

Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute for European Integration Research: http://www.eif.oeaw.ac.at/

5

The University of Graz is not listed here because political science cannot be studied there as a full course. See University of Graz, Institute for Austrian, European and Comparative Public Law, Political Science and Public Administration, http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/ opvwww/organ.html.

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

50

• • • • • • • • • • • •

University of Klagenfurt, Institute for Political Education and Political Research: http://polbil.uni-klu.ac.at/ulg/ Institute for Advanced Studies, Department of Political Science: http://www.ihs.ac.at/index.php3?id=400 Institute of Conflict Research: http://www.ikf.ac.at/ Institute for Latin America: http://www.lai.at/ Austrian Foundation for Development Aid: http://www.oefse.at/ Austrian Institute for International Affairs: http://www.oiip.at/oiip/ Austrian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution: http://www.aspr.ac.at/ European Center for Social Welfare Policy and Research: http://www.euro.centre.org/ Center for Social Innovation: http://www.zsi.at/ Institute for Social Research and Analysis: http://www.sora.at/index.html International Center for Migration Policy Development: http://www.icmpd.org/ Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences: http://www.iccr-international.org/

Table 1: Institutions of higher education teaching political science: academic personnel and students in 2005 Professors Vienna (IPW) Vienna Salzburg Innsbruck

2.2

5 3 4 6

Associate Professors 2 1 2 6

Assistants/ scientific staff 3 2 6 3

Lecturers

Students

106 12 4 20

3.930 329 1.399

Degree System and Admission Regulations

There is no numerus clausus at Austrian universities. To be eligible for university studies completion of a (upper-level) secondary school is required. There are two types of secondary schools: (1) the Gymnasium and (2) schools for professional education. A diploma of both of these types of schools qualifies for all fields of studies. Art universities require an additional aptitude test. Command of Latin is a precondition for such disciplines as Theology, History, Law, or Medical Studies. Special exams may open access to specific fields of study for students who have not attended or finished secondary school. Job experience does not count as an entry criteria (Paster 2000). The Austrian credit point system is related to the time schedule of lectures and seminars. A lecture or seminar of two hours per week, for example,

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

51

counts for 2 credit points. Thus, it is a rather schematic measure not reflecting the quality of teaching or the workload associated with a particular class. One Austrian credit point equals 3.75 ECTS points. The number of credit points necessary to finish a subject depends on type of study (minor, major) and type of degree. In the field of social science and humanities 120 credit points are the norm to finish a Master programme. A full-time student is expected to accumulate 12 to 16 credit points per semester. Currently, the Austrian system offers only one academic degree for undergraduate studies: the Magister. A Magister degree can be obtained at the earliest after studying 8 to 12 semesters, depending on the field of study. This period is obligatory and determined by the government. However, empirically studies last much longer. For fields of study which have a minimum requirement of four years the actual time of study ranges from 11 to 14 semesters – depending on the field of study. Free access to university education has been a political dogma of Austrian politics. However, as in other countries a heated debate has developed about virtues and vices of the introduction of tuition fees and more rigorous selection procedures. In the winter semester of 2001/02 tuition fees were finally introduced. Opponents of this policy change argue that it has led to a considerable reduction of student numbers which went back from 197,271 to 155,524. Since 2002/03, however, the number of students is on the rise again: 27,314 first-year students entered the universities, which represents an increase of 7.5 percent. Study fees currently amount to €378 per semester.6 In the area of teaching all political science departments and institutes have to rely to a considerable degree on external lecturers. While this has lead to what can be called a fruitful mixture of academics, political practitioners and researchers, it is none-the-less a consequence of an inadequate funding of political science. Thus, in 2003 this is reflected in a teacher-student ratio of 1 to 207. This is an unbearable situation and needs to be changed rather quickly.

2.3

Areas of Teaching

Political science curricula at universities are obliged by law to cover four subfields: Political Theory and Political Philosophy, the Austrian Political System, Comparative Political Science, and International Relations. If not included in the international relations program, European integration constitutes a fifth area. Major Austrian textbooks exist only for the Austrian political system. Prominent examples are Anton Pelinka’s Grundzüge der Politikwissenschaft (Wien 2000), Österreichische Politik (Wien 2001) jointly pub6

Students coming from outside the EU have to pay €742 per semester.

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

52

lished by Sieglinde Rosenberger and Anton Pelinka, or Handbuch des politischen Systems Österreichs (Vienna 1997) by Herbert Dachs and associates.

2.4

Research

The Austrian political system constitutes the major focus of political science research in Austria. In recent years this topic has been complemented by studies of the process of European integration. Studies of the North-South conflict as well as on the emergence of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe were undertaken in the area of International Relations. Research in political theory (e.g., theory of the state, democratic theory) and political philosophy is less numerous. A growing research interest can be observed in the area of gender studies. This field has developed into a trade mark of Austrian political research. A wide variety of theoretical and methodological approaches were employed in these studies (Kramer 2004). Austria’s entry in the European Union in 1995 opened up new possibilities for research in the area of comparative European politics. This new option was eagerly taken up by the political science community. All major political science departments have by now either become members in projects sponsored by the European Commission or have even coordinated one of the large scale research programmes. The department of political science of the IHS and the Institute for European Integration research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences are particularly well known “hubs” hosting EU projects.

2.5

Professional Communication

The Austrian Political Science Association (AUPSA) was founded in 1971. In the first years AUPSA was very successful in lobbying for an expansion of political science in Austria. This positive trend came to a halt in the mid1970s; however, it got a new momentum in the mid 1980s. AUPSA is a nonprofit society governed by elected officials and mostly financed by membership fees and public grants. Today, AUPSA organizes more than 500 members from political science and various professions which employ political scientists. In addition to supporting political science research in Austria, AUPSA provides a forum for professional discussion and exchange. To this end the association organizes an annual conference, conventions, round tables or lectures (sometimes in cooperation with the Swiss and/or the German Political Science Associations). Currently, AUPSA has the following four loosely organized sub-divisions: Political Economy, Comparative Politics, European Studies, and “Agora” Democracy. In addition, members receive an electronic

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

53

newsletter four times a year which contains information about conferences and publications Among its more specific goals are (1) the advancement of international cooperation which, in recent years, has lead to an intensified cooperation with political scientists from Central and Eastern Europe; (2) the advancement of young political scientists by awarding, each year, a prize for the best diploma thesis and the best PhD thesis. AUPSA’s publishing activities include the quarterly Austrian Journal of Political Science which, in 2004, had about 610 subscribers. Each issue focuses on a particular topic – with the aim of covering most of the fields of political science in Austria. In addition to the Austrian Journal of Political Science, the Rundschau, published by the “Sozialwissenschaftliche Studiengesellschaft” (SWS-Rundschau) needs to be mentioned as an outlet of articles. The Austrian Yearbook for International Politics and the Contemporary Austrian Studies are still other joint efforts of the Austrian political science community to support communication of research results. Concerning international links Austrian Political Science is well endowed. The Institute for European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Austrian Institute for International Affairs, the Institute for Advanced Studies, the departments for political science at the universities of Salzburg and Vienna are members of the ECPR. Currently, six researchers are listed in the membership section of epsNet. Only four political scientists (two from universities) are members of the International Political Science Association. This rather low number hides the fact that Austrians are frequently participating at IPSA conferences as non-members.

3 The Future of Political Science in Austria In the early years after World War II, the introduction of political science as a discipline at Austrian universities was very much evaluated in terms of party politics. The left camp hoped that political science would be “critical” and help change society in the desired direction. In the right camp, fear prevailed that political science would do just that, thus, it was perceived as threatening the traditional way of society and politics. With hindsight the high expectations of both camps regarding an important and lasting impact of political science on Austrian society can be called too optimistic – to say the least (Karlhofer/Pelinka 1991; Höll/Weninger 1994). Neither hopes nor fears have come true (Pelinka 1995, 2004a). Rather, over time political science has become a rather “normal” academic discipline at Austrian universities. Nevertheless, the lack of a coherent university reform, the absence of a political vision for the future of the educational sector, further cutbacks in the financial resources all contribute to a certain skepticism. It is true that Austria’s

54

Erna Appelt / Johannes Pollak

accession to the European Union has again strengthened the departments of law. But it is equally true that the now broader context has opened up new opportunities for political science as well. We witness an increased mobility of young researchers and an internationalization of the profession. Austrian political scientists have finally become part of the global political science community.

References Appelt, Erna (1996): “La science politique en Autriche” in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): Political Science in Europe: education, co-operation, prospects: report on the state of the discipline in Europe, Paris: Thematic Network Political Science: 105-130. Arndt, Hans-Joachim (1978): Die Besiegten von 1945. Versuch einer Politologie für Deutsche samt Würdigung der Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Dachs, Herbert et al. (19973): Handbuch des politischen Systems Österreichs, Wien: Manz. Fleck, Christian (2000): “Wie Neues nicht entsteht. Die Gründung des Instituts für Höhere Studien durch Ex-Österreicher und die Ford-Foundation”, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 11 (1): 129-178. Fröschl, Erich (1974): “Tendenzen der Forschungspolitik in Österreich“, ÖZP 3: 441459. Gerlich, Peter (1993): “Die ersten zehn Jahre – Anfänge der Politikwissenschaft“, in: Bernhard Felderer (ed.): Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften zwischen Theorie und Praxis. 30 Jahre Institut für Höhere Studien in Wien, Heidelberg: 139-162. Höll, Otmar / Weninger, Thomas (1994): “Zum Stand der Politikwissenschaft in Österreich“, SWS-Rundschau 3: 260-270. Karlhofer, Ferdinand / Pelinka, Anton (1991): “Austrian Political Science: the state of the art”, European Journal of Political Research 20: 399-411. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (2002): “Politikwissenschaftliche Forschung in Deutschland von 1949 bis Ende der 60er Jahre“, in: Jan van Deth (ed.): Von Generation zu Generation. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, Vol. 8: 51-58. Kramer, Helmut (ed.) (2004): Demokratie und Kritik – 40 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Österreich, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang Verlag. Leser, Norbert (1968): Zwischen Reformismus und Bolschewismus. Der Austromarxismus als Theorie und Praxis, Wien. Matjan, Gregor (1995): Ausbildung, Berufsbilder und Berufsfelder österreichischer PolitologInnen, Wien. Melchior, Josef (1990): “Zur österreichischen Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik: Entwicklung und Probleme im Kontext internationaler Diskussion“, ÖZP 3: 245265. Paster, Thomas (2000): “Welfare and Education – Austria and Sweden in Comparison” (http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9509708/uni/swedishpolitics.htm). Pelinka, Anton (1971): „‘Blinde Juristen sind besser’. Zur Politologiedebatte in Österreich”, Neues Forum 1: 1174.

The Current State of Political Science in Austria

55

Pelinka, Anton (1995): “Fluch und Segen der Normalität. Zur Situation der Politikwissenschaft in Österreich”, ÖZP 3: 347-352. Pelinka, Anton (2004): “The Impact of American Scholarship on Austrian Political Science: The Making of a Discipline”, in: Günter Bischof / Anton Pelinka (eds.): The Americanization/Westernization of Austria. Contemporary Austrian Studies, Vol. 12, New Brunswick (Transaction): 226-234. Pelinka, Anton (2004a): “Politikwissenschaft, kritische Öffentlichkeit und Politik“, in: Helmut Kramer (ed.): Demokratie und Kritik – 40 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Österreich, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang Verlag: 99-112. Sickinger, Hubert (2004): “Die Entwicklung der Österreichischen Politikwissenschaft”, in: Helmut Kramer (ed.): Demokratie und Kritik – 40 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Österreich, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang Verlag: 27-69. Stadler, Friedrich (1987): Vertriebene Vernunft: Emigration und Exil österreichischer Wissenschaft, 2 Bde., Wien. Tálos, Emmerich (ed.) (1993): Sozialpartnerschaft. Kontinuität und Wandel eines Modells, Wien. Zeisel, Hans (1969): “Der Anfang moderner Sozialforschung in Österreich“, in: Leopold Rosenmayr / Sigurd Höllinger: Soziologie. Forschung in Österreich, Wien.

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences? Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier / Karolien Dezeure / Anne-Sylvie Berck / Marleen Brans

1 Introduction Like many sectors of Belgian political, social and cultural life, the university system has split into two autonomous parts, a Flemish- and a French-speaking one. There are no more Belgian-wide (bilingual) universities, and since the 1960s both sub-systems have drifted apart considerably, each governed by a proper minister and ministry. This has also led to a clear division in political science as a discipline, with two political science organizations, separate curricula, recruitment procedures, and different adaptation patterns to the Bologna reforms. In this contribution we will first give an overview of the emergence of political science in Belgium before the “community troubles”, and then, for each subject addressed in this volume, present the current characteristics of political science in the Flemish- and the French-speaking Community.

2 Common Historical Background Political science has existed for more than a century at Belgian universities. The State Universities of Ghent and Liège were authorized in 1893 to teach degree and diploma courses in political science in their Law Faculties. At the same time, schools for political and social sciences were created at the Catholic University of Louvain and the Free University of Brussels. In spite of this long-standing history, however, the institutional and professional organisation of political science differs considerably from one university to another. The emergence and the initial development of political science were determined by three disciplines (Dewachter 1974). The founding discipline was public law. In fact, the first Belgian political scientists were predominantly constitutionalists who subsequently moved into political science. This background was reflected in the large and obligatory law component in the political science curriculum. The general consequence of this has been that Bel-

58

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

gian Political science has had difficulty in integrating behavioural and sociological approaches. This constitutional/legal origin was by nature rather Belgicist in outlook and probably slowed down the eventual splitting of the discipline. Its second root was political history, a discipline which was already highly developed before World War II and which subsequently paid some attention to what might be called the political sociology approach. In the work of the post-war generation of political historians, the political science approach has, in its turn, become a major influence (Witte 2003). Sociology started to exert an influence only after World War II, in particular due to the take-off of electoral studies. The political elites of the different pillars of Belgian society (Catholic, Socialist and Liberal) saw the practical utility of developing electoral sociology within their respective universities, and slowly the sociological approach spread to other pillarrelevant research areas such as the study of consociationalism, political elites and political participation. However, the contribution of sociology to political science in terms of the development of mathematical modelling and statistical techniques has, with few exceptions, been limited. Hence, until World War II political science as such could not be considered as a distinct discipline as the course contents were approached from the angle of the curriculum of law and history. While political science was consequently regarded as an inferior academic discipline (Witte 2003), after World War II, political science gained more attention due to four reasons. First of all there was a renewed concern for democracy and its institutions. Second, there were a growing democratisation of education and a fast increasing student population. Third, political science discussed contemporary history and sought to support policy makers, and thus distinguished itself from traditional history. Fourth, there was a growing influence from the Anglo-Saxon countries and France on the development of political science. All these processes led to a more intensified focus on political science as a distinct academic discipline, in terms of infrastructure as well as content. In the 1960s, political science became a separate department (still embedded in a larger faculty) in most universities (Witte 2003). Despite the rather slow development of a department of political science, a “Belgian Institute for the Science of Politics” was established already in 1951. In 1958 it started publishing a political science journal Res Publica. The journal became a forum for political-scientific discussions (Hooghe 2005). The non-university Centre de Recherche et d’Information Socio-Politiques (CRISP) created in 1958 was an equally significant step (Witte 2003). In the second half of the 1960s, the discipline became more and more popular. The number of students increased year by year (Frognier/De Winter 1991). More students meant, according to the financing standards of the Belgian universities, that the number of professors and assistants grew ac-

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

59

cordingly. By the end of the 1960s, there were about 60 full-time professors of political science.

3 The Split of Higher-Education Policy and Political Science’s Current Institutional Framework The Belgian unitary state was re-organized in a very complex federal way, on the basis of three communities and three regions. These three communities are the “French Community”, the “Flemish Community” and the “Germanspeaking Community”. The three regions are the “Walloon Region”, the “Region of Brussels-Capital” and the “Flemish Region”. Since 1988 education is under the exclusive control of the communities. Hence we find French-speaking and Flemish universities (but no German-speaking one). Regarding research, the competencies are shared by more diversified entities: the national level (federal), as well as both community and region levels (the community level being dominant). There are “State” universities, also labelled “public”; and “private” universities, also labelled “free”. The latter are divided into “catholic” and “freethinker” universities. Inter-community problems caused new divisions within the pillars themselves, leading to the dramatic split of the Catholic University of Louvain (founded in 1425) into a Flemish university (remaining at the Flemish town of Leuven) and a French-speaking one, newly created in Louvain-la-Neuve in Wallonia. Lastly, university expansion in the 1960-70s saw the creation of new institutions in almost each provincial capital. All different types are financed by the State. Thus, with a population of over 10 million people, in 2000 Belgium had 13 universities which offered programs in political science in the first and/or second cycle.1 This fragmentation means that some universities have very few teachers and students and receive only limited resources but still have to cover a wide field of political science subdisciplines.

1

The Jesuit University of Antwerp (UFSIA) merged in 2003 with the “pluralist” Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen (and the State University Centre of Antwerp, RUCA) into the Universiteit Antwerpen, with lead to the fusion of the political science departments of UFSIA and UIA.

60

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

Table 1: List of universities offering a diploma (first and/or second level)2 and size of staff in Political Science in full-time equivalents (November 2005) Flemish Community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap) Public Universities Universiteit Gent (U.G.) www.ugent.be 5.10 FTE professors, 13. FTE assistants, 17 FTE scientific researchers Universiteit Antwerpen (U.A.) www.ua.ac.be 8.2 FTE professors, 6 FTE assistants, 21.2 FTE scientific researchers Free Universities Katholieke Universiteit Brussel (K.U.Brussel) www.kubrussel.ac.be 2.5 FTE professors, 2 FTE assistants Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (K.U.Leuven) www.kuleuven.be 11.4 FTE professors, 5 FTE assistants, 50.1 FTE scientific researchers Vrije Universiteit Brussel (V.U.B.) www.vub.ac.be 7.25 FTE professors, 4.3 FTE assistants, 8.7 FTE scientific researchers

French-speaking Community (Communauté française de Belgique) Public Universities Université de Liège (ULg) www.ulg.ac.be 4 FTE professors, 7.5 FTE assistants, 2.5 FTE scientific researchers Université de Mons-Hainaut (U.M.H.) www.umh.ac.be * Free Universities Université Catholique de Louvain (U.C.L.) www.uclouvain.be 0.5 FTE professors, 6.5 FTE assistants, 10 FTE scientific researchers Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.) www.ulb.ac.be 13 FTE professors, 13.6 FTE assistants, 15 FTE scientific researchers Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix (Namur) (F.N.D.P.) www.fundp.ac.be * Facultés universitaires catholiques de Mons (F.U.C.A.M.) www.fucam.ac.be - FTE professors, 2 FTE assistants, 2 FTE scientific researchers Facultés universitaires Saint Louis (Bruxelles) (F.U.S.L.) www.fusl.ac.be *

*

For the universities that only offer “candidature” degrees, it is impossible to calculate the number of personnel devoted to Political Science only, as they do not have a genuine political science department.

2

Before the Bologna reforms, the degree obtained after the first two years of political and social sciences was called candidate (kandidaat/candidat), while the one obtained after the fourth year was called licentiate (licentiaat/licencié).

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

61

4 Staff and Recruitment The recruitment of faculty members follows rules specific to each university. For researchers, there are three modes of recruitment: (a) the universities can employ “assistants” who are generally recent graduates with honours. They sign limited-term contracts of a maximum of six years. The number of assistants varies greatly between universities (see Table 1); (b) hiring of researchers on “external research contracts”: these research contracts can be public or private, but usually they are public. The federal Collective Basic Research Foundation finances research projects based on an evaluation of the application by a commission comprised of scientists from all universities; (c) researchers can be nominated by the National Foundation of Scientific Research for contracts of limited duration, or for contracts for “qualified researchers” with no time limitation. All researchers are attached to universities. Inbreed is a traditional feature of Belgian political science, and the Belgian academic world in general. Most tenured staff has studied at their university of employment, has become assistants at its political science department and also holds a doctorate from that university. This tendency towards inbreed is mostly caused by the fragmentation of Belgian society, combining linguistic segregation with philosophical segmentation. Hence it used to be extremely difficult for a young academic with the “wrong” linguistic and philosophical pedigree to be recruited by a university with a different linguistic and philosophical profile. However, times are changing (slowly), and increasingly merit − and not only pedigree − tend to be taken into account.

5 Teaching 5.1

Degree System and Admission Regulations

There is no entrance exam for the Bachelor in political and social sciences. Any student holding a “humanities” diploma (of any type of secondary school) can enter the first Bachelor year (grades are of no consequence). Consequently, there is a very large intake in the first year that is sharply reduced thereafter (usually by more than half) by rather demanding exams. EU students pay a tuition fee to enter their first Bachelor year. However, compared to other European countries, this tuition fee is rather low. Undergraduate students without a scholarship pay more or less €500 at the Flemish universities, and about €700 at the French-speaking universities. Under-

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

62

graduate students with a scholarship pay €55 to €85 for their enrolment in Flemish- and €90 in French-speaking universities.

5.2

Student Numbers

It is impossible to give exact figures about the size of the student bodies as reliable statistics only cover those that have obtained the degree of licentiate and complementary licentiate degrees, post-licentiate degrees, and doctoral degrees. There are no figures on candidate degrees. As often, they carry a common label of “Candidate in Political and Social Sciences”, including also sociology and communication degrees. Thus, reliable figures grossly underestimate (by about two-thirds) the overall number of students in the field of political science especially in the first years of study. Table 2: Number of students having obtained the degree of licentiate or complementary licentiate degree, post- licentiate degrees, and doctoral degrees French-speaking universities (academic year 2003-2004) Licentiate and complementary 2nd-cycle degrees 3rd-cycle degrees Doctorate degrees

Source:

UCL 142 0 6

FUCAM 38 0 0

ULg 29 37 0

ULB 190 93 3

http://www.cref.be/Annuaire_2005.htm; March 21, 2006.

Flemish universities (academic year 2004-2005) Licentiate and complementary 2nd-cycle degrees Doctorates in the calendar years 2004/05

Source:

UG 119 6

UA KUBrussel VUB 39 10 54 3 1 6

KULeuven 98 10

http://www.vlir.be/; March 21, 2006.

Doctoral Studies Up to now, there are no specific doctoral programs for Political Science. Each university decides itself on the recruitment, formation and evaluation of their doctoral students. The Bologna Agreement will push universities to establish doctoral schools, probably based on inter-university cooperation. For instance, in the French-speaking community it is envisaged to create inter-university doctoral schools (amongst others between the UCL and ULB regarding EU studies and between the UCL, ULB, FUSL and FUCAM in political science), while there are also trans-national networks in the making or they exist already (like the Ecole doctorale transnationale et interdisciplinaire that is largely based on political science and international relations).

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

5.3

63

Areas of Teaching

The course curriculum for the licentiate/Master level, generally follows a similar logic in all Belgian universities. The most important elements are: (1) political institutions; (2) the processes of power acquisition and decision making; and (3) public policy and administration. These three components are combined in various ways in the Political Science curriculum. Apart from an emphasis of teaching Belgian politics in all its complexity, students get acquainted in their undergraduate courses with the main sub- and auxiliary disciplines of political science (methods and statistics, political philosophy, policy analysis, political history, comparative politics, public law, international relations). There is no standard book-length introduction to Belgian politics. Such a volume does not exist either in French, Dutch or English language.3 Usually students can specialise in their field of (political) interest.4

5.4

Quality Control

The quality of education is assured by so-called inter-university councils. The VLIR (Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad) is an autonomous consultation agency, financed by the Flemish universities. The Council gives recommendations and makes proposals to the minister responsible for university education or the science policy. Moreover, the Council organises consultation among the university institutions concerning quality control of higher education and accreditation, education policy, research policy and university management and administration. They launch every five years inter-university audits regarding the quality of teaching and research, also including foreign evaluators in the process. At the francophone side we find the CIUF (the Conseil interuniversitaire des universités francophones5) and the increasingly influential CREF (Conseil des recteurs des universités francophones de Belgique). The French-

3

4 5

However, a special issue of West European Politics on Belgian politics, edited by M. Brans, L. De Winter and W. Swenden will be published by the end of 2006. In Dutch, Hooghe and Deschouwer’s introductory book Politiek: een inleiding in de Politieke Wetenschappen (Amsterdam, Boom Onderwijs 2005) is used in several undergraduate programmes. In many universities, one can opt for a specific Master’s degree in public management and public policy, in international relations, or in European studies. An advisory committee composed of universities and other higher education institutions (including representation of students).

64

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

speaking Ministry has created an Agency for the evaluation of the quality of higher education (Agence pour l’évaluation de la qualité de l’enseignement supérieur) in charge of organizing audits of scientific disciplines. However, no political science audit has been performed yet, but will be as soon as all the Bologna reforms have been implemented. However, some universities like the UCL encourage their departments to launch audits by themselves.

5.5

Current Developments: The Implementation of the Bologna Agreement

In implementing the Bologna Agreement, the Flemish Community has adopted the Decree on the Structure of Higher Education in Flanders (2003), which outlines a legal framework for the gradual, year-by-year, reform of the Flemish higher education system into a two-tier degree system (the actual implementation of this Decree started in the academic year 2004/05): Bachelor degrees (can be obtained after three years (180 ECTS), initial Master (Master after Bachelor) programmes (after another one or two years), and post initial (Master after Master) programmes (one or two years). On the French-speaking side, implementation of the Bologna Agreement (2004 decree) started by first establishing a list of diplomas that must be offered in each university. This measure should facilitate student mobility, allowing students to pass from one university to another during their studies. The political science curriculum is defined as follows: • • • •

a three-year Bachelor degree; a one-year Master degree in general political science; four two-year Master degrees in general political science, international relations, public administration, and European studies; a PhD degree.

Note that in contrast to the Flemish side, this degree system leaves no room for alternative specializations at the Master level. Thus, it is for instance impossible to create a specific Master in comparative politics. The implementation of the Bologna Agreement has also triggered the creation of “academies” in order to reduce the negative effects of fragmentation. An academy consists of a network of two or more universities which will carry out common programs of teaching and research and develop international or intercommunity collaborations. These academies will also establish their own doctoral schools. So far, three academies have been created that follow the enduring pillarisation of the educational landscape: the Académie universitaire Wallonie-Bruxelles that includes the ULB, UMH and the Faculté Polytechnique de Mons (free-thinkers); the Académie universitaire Louvain, comprising the UCL, the FUCAM, the FUNDP and the FUSL

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

65

(Catholic); and the Académie universitaire Wallonie-Europe with the ULg and the Faculté universitaire des Sciences agronomiques de Gembloux (public).

6 Research All departments try to cover the field of international relations, political sociology and public administration. The specialisation largely depends on the research conducted by (a group of like minded) individuals dwelling on large and stable (usually public) funding sources. There is little effort to try to arrive at a critical mass in a particular sub-field. Hence, in the north as well as the south of Belgium, political science is highly fragmented regarding its institutions, and with little specialisation in terms of research themes and degrees. Still, research centres exist in most departments hosting individuals and groups which specialise in different topics. Those mentioned on the websites of the French-speaking political science departments include: at the UCL the Centre de Politique Comparée, the COMParative methods for the Advancement of Systematic cross-case analysis and Small-n Studies (COMPASSS), the Point d’appui Interuniversitaire sur l’Opinion Publique et la Politique (see below), the Association Universitaire de Recherche sur l’Action Publique (AURAP), the Centre d’Études Socio-politiques Belgique-Corée, the Centre d’études des crises et des conflits internationaux (CECRI), the Centre d’Étude Praxéologique, the Centre d’Étude de Gestion Démographique pour les Administrations Publiques (GéDAP). At the ULB, we find the Centre d’Etude de la vie politique (CEVIPOL), the Groupe d’étude pluridisciplinaire Sport et Société (GEPSS), the Pôle Bernheim d’études sur la paix et la citoyenneté, the Groupe d’analyse sociopolitique des pays d’Europe centrale et orientale (GASPPECO), the Groupe de recherche sur les acteurs internationaux et leurs discours (GRAID), the Centre de sociologie politique (CSP), the Centre de théorie politique (CTP), the Groupe d’étude du lobbying européen (LEGILE), the Centre d’Etudes Union européenne, Nouveau régionalisme et gouvernance globale (EUNRAGG). At the ULg, we find the Centre d’Analyse Politique des Relations Internationales (CAPRI), the Centre d’Etudes de l’Ethnicité et des Migrations (CEDEM), the Laboratoire Européen d’Administration Régionale et Locale (LEDAREL) and the Scientific and Public Involvement in Risk Allocations Laboratory (SPIRAL). At the FUCAM, we find three research units, the RIE (Relations Internationales et Européennes), the SERP (Systèmes Economiques, Régionaux et

66

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

Publics), and the S3P (Science Politique et Politiques Publiques). Finally at the FUNDP we find the ReCCCoM (Research Centre for Crisis and Conflict Management). Yet, there are also some French-speaking inter-university research centres. First there is the Centre de Recherche et Information Socio-Politiques, an independent organisation that studies the decision-making process in Belgium. However, the CRISP does not only cover political science topics but also subjects bordering on other sciences (economics, history). Yet, the directors of the CRISP have been prominent political commentators in the electronic media. Those mentioned on the websites of the Flemish political science departments include at the KULeuven, the Centrum voor Politicologie, the Instituut voor Internationaal en Europees beleid, the Instituut voor de Overheid, the centre Politiek en Sociaal Denken and the ISPO (see below). In Gent, we find the Centrum voor EU-studies, the Centrum voor Lokale Politiek, the Instituut voor Politieke Besluitvorming en Conflictmanagement, the Onderzoeksgroep Global Governance, and the Vakgroep Studie van de Derde Wereld. In Antwerp, we find the Media, Movements and Politics research group, the Centrum voor de Studie van de Vlaamse Buitenlandse Betrekkingen, the Onderzoeksgroep Management & Bestuur. The VUB has a research group Politics beyond the State, as well as Women Studies. The other Brussels flemish university, the KUBrussel, has an Institute of Political Sociology & Methodology (IPSoM). At the inter-university level, we find the Policy Research Centre for Governmental Organization, a consortium comprising KULeuven, UA, UG and the Hogeschool Gent, recognised by the Flemish government as a Policy Research Centre for Governmental Organization in Flanders (Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen, SBOV). Finally, there are also various small non-university based scientific research centres, such as the Centre de recherche et d’études politiques (CREP), a research centre promoting research and public education regarding citizenship, democracy and the dangers of the extreme right.

7 Two Political Science Associations In line with the federalisation process, not only the universities have split up but also the national political science association. The ‘Belgian Institute for the Science of Politics’, established in 1951, was divided in two separate organisations in 1978 due to growing tensions between Flemish- and Frenchspeaking members, especially in the aftermath of the traumatic splitting of

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

67

the Catholic University of Louvain along linguistic lines. At the Flemish side, the Politiologisch Instituut was established, that inherited the Res Publica journal. The French-speaking side organized the Association Belge de Science Politique – Communauté Française (ABSP-CF). Since then, there are no more institutionalized contacts between the two associations: they do not organise conferences together6; they hardly ever confront each other in public debates about the numerous problems of current Belgian politics; and when writing a contribution on the Belgian case in a comparative book, they will rarely seek cooperation with researchers across the linguistic border. In addition, as more and more of the public and private sponsors of scientific research are community based (e.g., the regional/community executives and administrations as well as civil society organisations), it becomes increasingly difficult to get resources for “Belgium-wide” research projects. Hence, more and more one finds solid data and research on a particular feature of Belgian politics for only one side of the linguistic border, while data on the other side is lacking. This seriously jeopardises the participation of Belgian political scientists in comparative research projects which are mostly interested in “the” Belgian case, and not in the delicacies of the Flemish- or French-speaking parts of Belgium. An exception to this sad development are the ISPO-PIOP Belgian electoral studies centres (attached to the Sociology Department at the KULeuven and the Political Science Department of the UCL respectively). Since 1991, the Instituut voor Sociaal en Politiek Opinieonderzoek (ISPO) organises the elections studies for the Flemish electorate, while the Point d’appui Interuniversitaire sur l’Opinion Publique et la Politique (PIOP) covers the Frenchspeaking electorate, using a common questionnaire. The institute is firmly anchored in international electoral research programmes (such as the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, CSES). After each election, each team publishes a volume analysing electoral behaviour in their respective communities. However, even here “all-Belgian” analyses remain rare. Yet informal or project bound cooperation between (teams of) researchers from different communities tend to become more frequent, such as the project on local parties (VUB-UCL), political agenda setting (UA, UCL, KUBrussel and VUB), the politics of migration (VUB-KUBrussel), or public administration (KULeuven-UCL). Still, the most frequent forums, where Flemish- and French-speaking political scientists meet and discuss, are international ones, especially the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the ECPR. The small scale of the Flemish- and French-speaking academic communities raises questions about the viability of separate Flemish- and Frenchspeaking political science associations. Hence, the Flemings seek closer 6

Both associations organise a general conference every two years.

68

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

cooperation with their Dutch counterpart (the Dutch Circle for Political Science). So since a few years, the Politologisch Instituut participates in the Dutch-Flemish Annual Political Science Conference. On the French-speaking side, closer cooperation is sought with the Association Française de Science Politique and the Association Suisse de Science Politique (which have held their first joint conference in 2005).

8 Professional Communication Journals and periodicals There is no Belgian publishing house specialised only in political science publications. Nevertheless, on the French-speaking side, some publishers offer collections that are devoted to political science: the ULB éditions, the CRISP bi-monthly publications (Hebdomadaire) and their specific Dossiers, and the Polis collection of De Boeck publisher. Other publishers open to political science are Bruylandt, Academia, Nathan-Labor, and Vie Ouvrière. There exists only one review specifically dedicated to political science on the Frenchspeaking side, the Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée (RIPC), which, while coordinated at the UCL, is strictly speaking not a Belgian review. On the Flemish side, the Politologisch Instituut publishes the multilingual Res Publica (mainly in Dutch but with also some English and French contributions). For public administration, there is the recent journal Burger bestuur & beleid. One finds two university related publishers: the Universitaire Pers Leuven (Leuven University Press) and VUB Press. The main private Flemish publishers open to political science are: Kritak, Van Halewijck, Acco, Davidsfonds, Hadewijch-Daedelus, EPO, De Standaard en De Nederlandse Boekhandel. One must also note the multilingual Belgian review Studia Diplomatica in international relations, managed by the bilingual Royal Institute of International Relations (IRRI-KIIB). There are different social science periodicals that also publish politicalscience papers. For example: Recherches sociologiques (published by the UCL), the Revue de l’Institut de Sociologie, Transitions and L’année sociale (published by the ULB) as well as Annales de la Faculté de Droit (published by the ULg), the Tijdschrift voor Sociologie and the Gids op Maatschappelijk Gebied.

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

69

9 Belgian Political Science and the World Membership in International Organisations Most Belgian universities are member of general and specialized political science associations, such as the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR),7 the European Political Science Network (epsNet), the International Political Science Association (IPSA) as far as general political science is concerned. In public affairs we find the International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS), the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA), the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA), the European Thematic Network in Public Administration (EPAN) and the Entretiens Universitaires Réguliers pour l’Administration en Europe (EUROPA). Finally, in EU studies we find the European Community Studies Association (ECSA).

Current Leadership Positions in International Organisations Kris Deschouwer (VUB) is co-editor of the European Journal for Political Science (EJPR). Geert Bouckaert (KUL) is president of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA). Luc Reychler (KUL) is the secretary general of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA). Christian Franck is Secretary General of the Transeuropean Policy Studies Association (TEPSA). Benoît Rihoux is convenor of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Methodology as well as academic convenor of the ECPR Summer School in Methods and Techniques (Ljubljana). Finally, André-Paul Frognier has been a member of the Executive Committee of the ECPR for 12 years, and currently serves as member of the Executive Committee of epsNet.

10 The Future of Political Science in Belgium Labour Market The labour market position of political scientists is relatively good, in the sense that most political science students do find a job. Partial evidence8 7 8

Belgian political scientists are active participants in the General Sessions of Workshop, and regularly serve as workshop directors. Research on the labour market position of the students in political science graduated in 1996/97 and in 2000-2003 (N = 446), Dept. of Sociology, KULeuven.

70

Lieven De Winter / André-Paul Frognier et al.

indicates that about one student out of three works in public administration. One of seven is involved in conducting scientific research but about one in five works for private enterprises.

The Impact of Belgian Political Science on Domestic Politics There is a long tradition of public consultancy of political scientists, mainly in the field of public administration. For decades, researchers in public administration have been involved in training programs for civil servants and, more recently, also in the field of administrative reform and public management. In International Relations, consultancy is rather common, including the organization of training programs for future diplomats. In political sociology, the advice of electoral researchers is highly appreciated by party leaders, especially since the creation of the ISPO-PIOP. However, consultancy does not necessarily equal influence. There are numerous examples of government ordered reports which were ignored. Finally, academic advice is sought at the nexus of Belgian politics, the ministerial cabinets (a few political scientists have served as “chef de cabinet”, or chief advisors of these powerful private staffs of ministers) and party headquarters. Surprisingly, very few political scientists have become active politicians.

Political Scientists and the Media Certainly elections constitute the heyday of media exposure for Belgian political scientists. Every regional and sub-regional newspaper, radio and TVstation wants a political scientist as an election commentator. Their comments are also sought to interpret the numerous inter-community conflicts and the long series of scandals that have tainted Belgian politics since the 1990s. This large media exposure is certainly beneficial to the visibility of political science in Belgian society, but may also weaken its academic prestige. To some extent, political scientists are too much in demand: often they are asked to comment on topics on which no solid political science research exists, like corruption, intra-party politics, neo-corporatism or the chances of survival of the Belgian federal state. Often journalists, that want to show impartiality, seek the “advice” of political scientists to legitimate their own views, even if they are much better informed than the political scientist. In addition, the fact that politicians control the allocation of most of the research funds, political scientists are often “domesticated” by their current or potential political sponsors. Hence, the triangle between politics, media and political science − that some political scientists claim to exist in Belgium − is certainly not made out of iron.

Belgium: From One to Two Political Sciences?

71

To conclude, at the dawn of the third millennium of Europeanisation and globalisation, “Belgian” political science faces many challenges, most of them inherited from the past. First there is the problem of linguistic legal constraints that limits possibilities to offer Bachelor and Master degrees in another language than the regional one. The adaptation to the Bologna criteria is clearly lagging behind the West-European average. The long tradition of inbreed and ideological segmentation is waning, but it can take a full generation to arrive at the level of internationalization found in leading political science countries, although young researchers increasingly tend to escape from these straightjackets by participating in Erasmus exchanges, international training programs, workshops and conferences. Strong fragmentation also poses increasingly problems of critical size of research units. Finally, the main challenge to Belgian political science − from the perspective of the scientific understanding of Belgian politics − comes from the drifting apart of the two linguistic communities in most sectors of socio-political life, a tendency that Belgian political scientists have (and sometimes seek) to duplicate in their intellectual scope of interests.

References Brans, Marleen / Lieven De Winter / Wilfried Swenden (eds.) (2006): Special Issue of West European Politics on Belgian Politics (forthcoming). Dewachter, Wilfried (1974): “De Politieke Wetenschap in Belgïe: Resultanten van Franse Kultuur and Elitair Pragmatisme”, Acta Politica, IX: 24-53. Frognier, André-Paul / Lieven De Winter (1991): ‘The state of political science in Belgium’ in European Journal of Political Research, XX: 389-397. Hooghe, Marc (2005): “Divided by the Same Language. Political Science Associations in Belgium and the Netherlands”. European Political Science 4 (2): 141150. Hooghe, Marc / Kris Deschouwer (2005): Politiek: een inleiding in de Politieke Wetenschappen, Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs. Witte, Els (2003): Over bruggen en muren. De hedendaagse politieke geschiedenis en de politieke wetenschappen in België (1945-2000). Leuven: Universitaire Pers KULeuven.

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

1 Introduction At the beginning of the 21st century, in the wider context of European integration and globalisation, higher education in Europe (UNESCO 1999) has embarked on a process of implementing a long-term agenda for structural change well beyond the already large scope of the Bologna reforms (Reichert/Tauch 2005: 41). No European country, irrespective of its size, can resist or withstand the wind of change. Countries are rather invited to adopt a more proactive stand in order to secure the most positive outcome from this far-reaching process of change. Endogenous and exogenous pressure for change, stemming from the national or intra-European level as well as from the international level, namely globalisation, are inextricably interwoven and difficult to disentangle. Universities, being “the trustees of the European humanist tradition” (Reinalda/Kulesza 2006: 114) and as “autonomous institutions at the heart of society” (ibid.), are positioned at the centre of wide-ranging and far-reaching changes occurring in society. The future of the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area depends on strong higher education institutions which are able to pursue excellence in regard to their respective missions. The Bologna Process can be looked at as both a consequence of and a contribution to the process of European higher education (Haug/Tauch 2001). This process has caused rather controversial public debates in various countries, including Cyprus. The seismic changes occurring during the last decade in European higher education institutions in general, and in academic disciplines in particular, are due to two main reasons: The first is Europe’s willingness to develop into an attractive destination for students and teachers from around the world by promoting excellence in all academic disciplines and by strengthening the competitiveness of Europe vis-à-vis America and Asia, for it has become obvious that Europe is not as attractive an area for study and research as it could be. The second is the overarching character of the Bologna Process. Universities were left with no choice but to demonstrate an unprecedented high degree of strategic initiative, responsiveness and adaptability in an effort to keep their programmes from lagging behind changing needs, the demands of society and advances in scientific knowledge. As an indirect

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

74

effect, academic disciplines face their own challenges. In the new global era of European integration, professionals have to find creative ways in order to keep up with change in search of excellence in their respective academic disciplines. In this global context of continental-scale changes it is not surprising that political science, being a highly important discipline aiming to achieve better understanding of political structures and processes and educating democratic citizens in the modern world, is witnessing its own patterns of change. Just as universities’ organisational structures differ because of geographical and historical heritage, academic disciplines have also developed in diverse ways, and are thus differently organised in the various European Union member states. This study assesses the state of political science in Cyprus. It constitutes the second study carried out in this field, but it is the first conducted after Cyprus became a full member of the European Union. Both studies1 refer exclusively to the higher education institutions that function within the legal framework of the Republic of Cyprus.

1.1

Historical Background

The late development of higher education institutions in Cyprus, as well as patterns of change and continuity, cannot be understood without reference to its contextual and historical background. Cyprus is a small country of 9,251 square kilometres, located at the north-eastern end of the East Mediterranean. Its strategic location at the crossroads of three continents resulted in subsequent foreign dominations which left enduring marks on the islands structures, processes and political culture (Agapiou-Josephides 2002: 54-55). Cyprus only gained its independence from the British Empire in 1960. With a population of less than a million people, the island is rather well known because of its political and geographical division. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, after centuries of peaceful coexistence − contrary to Greece and Turkey in the European Union − are experiencing a period of separation. Prospects for reunification and integration in a European context can be seen at the horizon, but they have to manoeuvre through difficult political processes. Its capital, Nicosia, still holds the sad privilege of being the last divided European capital and this division has imposed long-lasting repercussions in all sectors and all spheres of life. The development of higher education institutions in Cyprus presents its own idiosyncratic features. First of all, the majority of Cypriot students are still attending higher education institutions abroad. Second, the universities 1

The first study was published by Agapiou-Josephides (2002).

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

75

established at present are all state universities, with highly selective procedures and a numerus clausus. The fact that all universities are state-run contrasts with the fact that private higher education institutions developed first and into a much more expanded sector than the public one. This implies that the majority of students pursuing their studies in Cyprus attend higher education institutions which do not have university status. Third, the teaching language in all higher education institutions other than universities is English. Last, these higher education institutions are profit-making organisations.2 It is a sheer fact that Cyprus has always had an incredibly high participation rate of citizens of university age in university studies, even prior to the creation of its own university. The interest of young people to continue their studies beyond the secondary-school level, and their parents’ willingness to carry the financial burden of their studies can be historically and sociologically interpreted as an indirect effect of the 1974 war, when Turkey invaded Cyprus after a coup d’état perpetrated on the island by the military junta in Greece. In a few days, 200,000 people, almost one-third of the population, were forcibly driven away and lost access to their homes and all their property mainly in the northern part of Cyprus, which is until today under the effective control of Turkish troops. The message conveyed to them was clear and they are proud to explain that they learned that “the only property one cannot lose”, “the only capital you can always take with you is education”. This is the rationale behind their credo to offer through education a better and safer future to their children. In the academic year 2002/03, nearly 67 percent of all secondary-school graduates continued their studies. About 44 percent attend higher education institutions abroad and 22 percent in Cyprus (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus 2005: 22). According to the same statistical source, social sciences were the most popular field of study (12.5 percent) after business and administration (11.2 percent), which constitutes a significant shift in students’ preferences in comparison to previous statistics. In the last decade, the system of higher education in Cyprus underwent major changes, both in terms of deepening and widening. On the deepening scoreboard, one can notice the developments in relation to the Bologna reform agenda (ECTS, Diploma Supplement, mobility schemes). On the widening scoreboard one can notice, beyond the already existing University of Cyprus − the only one to offer a Degree in Political Science −, the creation of

2

Ministry of Education and Culture (2004: 107); (Υπουργείο Παιδείας και Πολιτισµού, Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικής Μεταρρύθµισης (2004) «∆ηµοκρατική και ανθρώπινη παιδεία στην ευρωπαϊκή πολιτεία. Μανιφέστο εκπαιδευτικής µεταρρύθµισης», Λευκωσία, σ. 107.

76

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

two new state universities: the Open University of Cyprus3 and the Technical University of Cyprus4. Furthermore, few private higher education institutions are well advanced in their efforts to acquire university status.5 A number of tertiary education state institutes and a bigger number of private schools of tertiary education, none of which has the status of a university yet, are also operating in Cyprus. The law stipulating the establishment of the University of Cyprus was passed by the House of Parliament in 1989. The University admitted its first students in 1992. Today, it offers programmes of study both at graduate and postgraduate levels. The Senate of the University of Cyprus decided to adopt the European Credit and Transfer System (ECTS) and the Diploma Supplement as early as 2003. These already apply to all programmes. On the deepening scoreboard again, there are a number of developments since the 2002 report. As an example, we can mention the creation of an Advisory Committee on Tertiary Education6, which is entrusted with the role of advising the Ministry of Education and Culture on higher education issues. The Committee consists of representatives from all important strata of society – higher education professors, employers’ union representatives, trade union representatives and many others. As far as Quality Assurance is concerned, the process of setting up a National Quality Assurance Agency, as requested by the Berlin communiqué (19 September 2003) is well under way. The relevant bill takes into account the four clusters identified in the Berlin Communiqué: • •

a definition of responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved; evaluation of programmes of institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results;

3

The law stipulating the establishment of the Open University of Cyprus was passed by the House of Parliament in 2002. This university offers programmes by distance learning starting from the academic year 2006/07. The law stipulating the establishment of the Technological University of Cyprus was passed by the House of Parliament in 2003. This will be a conventional-type technical university. The Technological University has not functioned yet, but is expected to also offer programmes of the types and overall requirements as those offered by the University of Cyprus. Regarding the state institutes of tertiary education, the Higher Technical Institute offers programmes of a technological direction that have a duration of three academic years and lead to the award of a basic higher education degree that provides access to second-cycle programmes. The rest of the state institutes of tertiary education, offer professional-type programmes the duration of which is between one to three academic years, which do not provide access to second-cycle programmes. Unified Laws to Regulate the Establishment, Control and Operation of Institutions of Tertiary Education, 1996-2002.

4

5

6

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

• •

77

a system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures; international participation, co-operation and networking.

In the current system, the competent body for quality assurance and accreditation of the programmes offered by the private schools of tertiary education is the Council for Educational Evaluation-Accreditation (Symvoulio Ekpedeftikis Axiologisis Pistopiisis SEKAP), which is a member of the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). At present, a number of programmes offered by private schools are evaluated and accredited by SEKAP. The national body responsible for the recognition of higher education qualifications is the Cyprus Council for the Recognition of Degrees (Kypriako Symvoulio Anagnorisis Titlon Spoudon KYSATS). KYSATS can recognize equivalence, or equivalence-correspondence for first cycle titles, or just equivalence for postgraduate titles. KYSATS is entitled to recognize joint degrees as well. The birth and development of political science as an autonomous academic discipline is inextricably linked to the late development and distinctive features of higher education in Cyprus. Although the Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960 and the question of the establishment of a university was discussed at the highest political level since the 1970s, on the basis of successive confidential reports drafted mainly by UNESCO experts7, the University of Cyprus was only established in 1990 and received its first students in 1992. The first students in political science were admitted in 1996 only and graduated in June 2000. The University of Cyprus is the only university offering political science study programmes. At the Bachelor level, the University of Cyprus offers a four year major degree in political science and a minor consisting of ten courses. At the Master level, the Department of Social and Political Sciences is currently finalizing two study programmes: one in Social and Political Theory, which will be offered jointly by political scientists and sociologists of the Department, and another one in International and European Politics. The Department of Social and Political Sciences also supports a PhD in political science, the only one in Cyprus. Two private higher education Colleges – Intercollege and Cyprus College −, which are in the process of acquiring university status, made valuable efforts to establish programmes in or related to political science. Intercollege is offering study programmes in the field of International Relations at the Diploma level (2 years), at the Bachelor level (4 years), and at the level of Master of Arts (18 months). Cyprus College has prepared an interdisciplinary 7

Report of the Inter-ministerial Committee on the Establishment of a University in Cyprus, Nicosia, December 1976; Report of the Inter-ministerial Committee on the Establishment of a University in Cyprus (concise and revised), Nicosia, October 1982; UNESCO (1977, 1979); Sofianos (1986); Bell (1986).

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

78

programme in European Studies at the level of Bachelor of Arts (4 years). The programmes of these two Colleges have successfully passed the process of accreditation. The process of institutionalisation of political science in Cyprus was slow. The key elements that prevented an early emergence as an autonomous academic discipline can be found in the late development of higher education in general, and in the late institutionalisation of this discipline in particular. Moreover, one has to add the complications of the 1974 war experience, the resulting political problems and the de facto division of the island.

1.2

Current Developments

The Bologna Process is both the result of and a contribution to the process of integration of European higher education, and has accelerated reforms at the higher education institutions in Cyprus (Haug/Tauch 2001: 3). The public debate which has accompanied the whole process, as well as the reactions to the implementations implied, have not been without problems. On the contrary, its raison d’être, its priorities, its substance and technicalities have caused controversial ideological and philosophical discussions. For many years now, the Bologna Process has been on the agendas of universities and ministries of education alike in 45 European countries, Cyprus included. The Bologna Declaration and its follow-up process have been used to accelerate, facilitate and guide a long-term agenda for structural change. Cyprus, in general, and the University of Cyprus, in particular, took a rather positive attitude regarding the Bologna Process and adopted a clearly proactive strategy, trying to optimise the institution’s position with the help of the new framework for structural changes. Despite this positive and proactive stance, empirical evidence indicates that it did cause a kind of reform fatigue. To some extent, this may be attributed to the country’s small size and limited human and other resources. In addition, it seems that in order to preserve some kind of democratic public debate and allow for input, one needed to put in place a framework for high-level top-down management balanced by bottom-up initiatives coming from departments and faculties (Reichert/Tauch 2005: 43). The University of Cyprus has worked along these lines to allow a flexible and successful implementation, with a certain degree of success. The main objections to Bologna, which are of an ideological and philosophical nature, remain vivid. They may even be growing with some negative consequences of the Bologna Process becoming visible. Concerns about commercialisation of higher education and the heavy job market orientation of degrees are constantly voiced in public debates and they need to be debated and addressed in the future.

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

79

How did the Bologna Process affect the development of political science in Cyprus? If we take the example of the University of Cyprus (the only one which offers a political science study programme leading to a Bachelor Degree in Political Science), one can locate effects at three levels: content, context and process. Content-wise, changes have been introduced to offer new courses, such as Political Economy, as recommended by the European Political Science Network (epsNet) and the Conference of European National Political Science Associations, in their proposal of a core curriculum for political science. Context-wise, the simultaneous implementation of all reforms included in the Bologna Process created a rather confusing situation for lack of proper information. The role of European Thematic Networks, such as the ones mentioned above, proved to be extremely useful. For instance, the timely publication of a book on the Bologna Process by epsNet (Reinalda/Kulesza 2006) provided excellent help and facilitated the adaptation process for our discipline. Process-wise, the whole structure of the study programme was translated into the conditions of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), not without difficulties mainly by its lack of flexibility in requiring 30 ECTS per semester. However, it also led to the development and improvement of external cooperation.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

The creation of the University of Cyprus in 1990 and the institutionalisation of political science as an autonomous academic discipline in 1996 do not mean that the political science landscape had been completely empty or that it started only then. Numerous institutes and research centres developed to fill the gap, at least partly. In some respects they paved the way for the institutionalisation of political science in the country (see Agapiou-Josephides 2002). In the field of teaching, and from an institutional point of view, the case of Cyprus is quite idiosyncratic in many respects. First of all, teaching in political science at university level, both undergraduate and graduate, is linked with just one university, the University of Cyprus. There are no private universities for the time being. However, two private colleges, registered with the Ministry of Education and Culture, are well advanced in the process of acquiring university status. As mentioned above, these colleges already

80

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

have elaborated programmes in political science, mainly in the fields of International Relations (postgraduate level) and European Studies. Second, the number of teaching staff and students is quite limited. The first political scientists graduating in Cyprus obtained their degrees in June 2000. The total number of the Department’s students during the academic year 2005/06 is 129 − 126 at the undergraduate level and three at the PhD level8. The Master programmes in Social and Political Theory and in International and European Politics will be offered in the near future. The curriculum is structured in such a way that it combines core political science modules, as well as a number of courses in sociology. In any case, it covers all the sub-fields of the UNESCO 1948 classification (Political Theory, Political Institutions, Political Parties and Interest Groups, and International Relations). The study programme includes (among other subjects): Introduction to Political Science, History of Political Thought, Methodology of Political Science, International Relations, Comparative Politics and European Integration. Among the sociology modules one finds Introduction to Sociology, Classic Sociological Theories, as well as Society and Politics in Cyprus. As the Department is at its beginning, the academic staff is recruited from European, American and other foreign universities by an Elective Committee nominated by the Senate of the University of Cyprus. The Elective Committee consists of internationally recognised professors in the respective academic field from at least three different countries. The Department of Social and Political Sciences is part of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Education Sciences. The Department consists of 12 teaching members (ten males, two females). Six of them are political scientists (four males, two females). Three members hold a tenured position and three have a three-year contract. As far as sociology is concerned, there are four sociologists, two in tenured and two in three-year contract positions. One criminologist and one anthropologist also hold a tenured position (all male).

2.2

Degree System and Admission Regulations in Political Science

Today, the University of Cyprus offers four-year undergraduate study programmes leading to a Bachelor degree (Ptychio; 240 ECTS credits); postgraduate ones leading to a Master degree (90-120 ECTS credits) and PhD programmes (240 ECTS credits). Each academic year consists of two semesters. In parallel to attending a first-cycle major programme, a student may 8

Out of the 126, there are 94 females and 32 males. The PhD students are one female and two males.

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

81

enrol in a minor programme consisting of 60 ECTS credits. A minor programme can be completed during the normal time period of a first cycle programme (4 academic years), provided that the student will be in a position to carry a higher workload than normal and profiting from the fact that some courses count both for minor and major study programmes. Access to a first cycle programme is granted to students with a highschool diploma (Apolyterion) or an equivalent qualification, and national entrance examinations, which are highly competitive, rank the candidates and offer entrance to a particular programme to the ones ranked highest. Admission of special groups of students, over and above the quota for standard entry, can be based on social, economic and other criteria and follows other procedures decided by the University. Admission to a minor programme is regulated by internal procedures of the Departments which offer the programmes. Master programmes consist of three to four semesters of full-time study (90-120 ECTS credits) and lead to a Magister Artium, for programmes in humanities, letters, economics or social sciences, or a Magister Scientiae for programmes offering science and engineering degrees. The submission of a thesis is not an obligatory component of second-cycle programmes. If a thesis is written, the corresponding workload cannot be counted more than half of the overall workload of the programme. The minimal qualification for admission to a second-cycle Master programme is a Bachelor degree (Ptychio) or an equivalent qualification. The duration of a PhD programme is between three to five academic years and leads to the degree a Doctor of Philosophy (Didactoriko). A Doctorate programme consists of postgraduate courses of at least 60 ECTS credits, a comprehensive examination, presentation of a research proposal to a three-member Committee, and the defence of an original research thesis conducted by a five-member Examination Committee, comprising at least one external member. A doctoral student, who has earned a Magister or an equivalent degree, may be partially or fully exempted from the required courses. The total workload of a PhD programme is 240 ECTS credits. A major degree in political science can be obtained by completing a four-year (eight semesters) study programme. A minor degree, consisting of ten courses, is also very popular among students of other departments, especially by those from the Department of Turkish Studies and the Department of Education. At the postgraduate level, the Department prepared a two-year Master degree in Social and Political Theory and in International and European Policy. A PhD programme in political science of three- to five-year duration started in the 1999/2000 academic year.

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

82

Entry Requirements In order to be accepted by the University of Cyprus, a candidate has to hold a highschool diploma, equivalent to the German Abitur or to the French Baccalauréat (Apolytirio). A numerus clausus is imposed, which usually leaves 2025 places each year for a degree in political science and another 20-25 places for a degree in sociology. Student admission is highly competitive. It is regulated by a national scheme for undergraduate admission. Students express preferences for various disciplines and they are accepted by considering the grades obtained in the examination. The competitive examination is valid for entry into universities in Greece as well. Because of these strict selection criteria at the point of entry, failure rates among political science students in Cyprus are very low and most firstdegree students complete their studies in eight semesters (four academic years) when they are between 22-24 years old (no difference between women and men). Admission to postgraduate studies – Master and PhD levels – follows a competitive procedure for holders of internationally recognised degrees.

Tuition Fees There are no tuition fees for Cypriot or European students for the undergraduate programmes. The tuition is covered by the state. For the postgraduate programme the tuition fee is set at 2,000 Cyprus pounds per year, however, there are several possibilities to obtain scholarships or university-based jobs.

2.3

Areas of Teaching

From the very beginning, the University of Cyprus and the Department of Social and Political Sciences deliberately decided to design study programmes meeting high-level international standards to secure fair chances for their graduates to be accepted at the best universities worldwide. The Department of Social and Political Sciences administers programmes which focus on Cyprus’s politics and polity as well as on European and International Relations. Students have to attend mandatory courses on Introduction to Political Science, Sociology, Anthropology and Economics, Political Theory, International Relations, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Systems, and European Integration. They also have to pass mandatory courses in Statistics and Methodology, in Computer Sciences and in a foreign language of their choice. Course books correspond to what is used interna-

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

83

tionally. Most textbooks are in English. Almost all these courses are worth 56 ECTS credits. The Department of Social and Political Sciences also offers political science courses in the framework of an interdisciplinary programme in International and European Economic Studies such as: Comparative Politics, International Relations, European Integration, Political System of the European Union, Cyprus and the European Union, Law of the European Union, International Law.

2.4

Research

Research constitutes one of the main objectives of the University of Cyprus and enjoys a central position in the University’s activities. The University aspires to establish itself as a research-oriented institution that combines high-quality research with high-quality teaching, in order to promote knowledge and educate highly qualified specialists and professionals. The University’s research policy is mostly decided by the Senate, with the advice of the Research Committee of the University. The Research Committee is responsible for the expansion of the University’s research capabilities and for the promotion of research in general. It is also in charge of the co-ordination of all procedures of approval, funding, preparation, realisation, monitoring, and evaluation of research at the University. In line with its research policy, an important, distinctive feature of the research funding system of the University of Cyprus that deserves to be mentioned as “best practice”, is the so-called Research Activity: Each member of the academic staff is ensured to receive from the University’s budget at least €2,500-4,000 for autonomous research activities. Every year, research activity funding is re-adjusted on the basis of one’s publications record. Publication activities in a three-year period are evaluated both by quality (peer reviewed journals, publishing houses) and quantity of publications. The outcome of this evaluation determines the amount of funding granted for the next period. Thus, all members of the academic staff have an equal duty and opportunity to do research. In this respect, the Research Activity that a young lecturer is submitting to the University’s Research Committee to obtain funding is treated on an equal footing with the ones submitted by senior professors. Furthermore, the University of Cyprus has always managed to attract external funds which exceed its own research budget. During the period 20022004, the amount of 4,623,489 Cyprus Pounds for 346 research programmes came from external souces, mainly from the European Union and the National Promotion Foundation. The amount coming from the University’s own budget was only 3,503,000 Cyprus Pounds. Funding from the Research Pro-

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

84

motion Foundation, the national research funding agency, is also worth mentioning. In the period of 2005 to mid-2006, 186 applications were successfully submitted by the University of Cyprus amounting to a total of 6,421,550 Cyprus Pounds. As far as the publication record is concerned, members of the academic staff of the University of Cyprus have published 141 scientific books and nearly 2,000 scientific articles during this period. The members of the Department of Social and Political Sciences have published 20 books and 69 articles (University of Cyprus 2005). Research at the Department of Social and Political Sciences covers a wide range of topics related to Cypriot politics, policies and polity analyzed from a national and an international perspective, as well as harmonisation policies concerning Cyprus and the European Union. Main research activities include: the Cyprus problem, human rights, international organisations, women and politics, women and science, the European Union and European co-operation in the Mediterranean context. It is worth noting that despite of the young age and the small size of the Department it has established cooperation relationships with a wide range of foreign universities, research institutes and research groups. High priority is also given to Research Programmes which are designed to last longer periods of time and involve local and international partners. In addition, the University encourages research undertaken in co-operation between colleagues from the same Department and interdisciplinary research carried out by several departments. Furthermore, consulting and research activities undertaken on behalf of public, semi-public and private institutions on important social and political issues of the country is of mutual benefit. As far as international co-operation is concerned, members of the University are active in the following institutions: epsNet, the Diplomatic Studies Programme, the European Community Studies Association (ECSA), and the SOCRATES Programme. In addition, there are various bilateral agreements with universities in several European countries. The Department of Social and Political Sciences has obtained three Jean Monnet Chairs.

2.5

Political Communication

The short history of political science as an autonomous academic discipline on one hand and the absence of a Political Science Association in Cyprus on the other are two key elements explaining why there are no national journals and periodicals devoted to political science. The members of the academic staff in the Department of Social and Political Sciences publish in international journals, mainly European and American ones. They are also active in European and international professional networks as mentioned above. The

The Current State of Political Science in Cyprus

85

only journal published in Cyprus coming close to a political science journal is the Cyprus Review published by Intercollege. However, its articles are not included in the Political Science Abstracts published by the International Political Science Association (IPSA). The setting-up of a national Political Science Association would be a significant step in the process of building a community of political scientists, and would certainly contribute to enhance the visibility of the profession.

3 The Future of Political Science in Cyprus The deepening and widening of the higher education landscape in Cyprus will be a major feature for the years to come. It will certainly produce farreaching changes and will have consequences for the future of political science as well. The fact that the University of Cyprus was founded only a decade ago is to some extent both an advantage and a disadvantage. The young age is clearly an advantage in the sense that it was created with a contemporary and forward-looking orientation. Its mission, vision, student-centred approach, and democratic governance correspond to norms adopted by the international community for the 21st century. No doubt, a lot remains to be done. The Cyprus Political Science Association (CPSA), which is under development, will certainly serve as a catalyst in the professionalisation of the discipline in many ways. It will create an essential platform facilitating scientific debate and interaction between political scientists. It may also contribute to better the chances of political science students who are entering the job market. The Department of Social and Political Sciences is expected to provide new perspectives on important contemporary political and social issues. Its success ultimately depends on its responsiveness to this challenge. Political scientists will hopefully contribute to a new dynamic in the relevant debates.

References Agapiou-Josephides, Kalliope (2002): “Political Science in Cyprus”, in: Hans-Dieter Klingemann / Ewa Kulesza / Anette Legutke (eds.): The State of Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe, Berlin: edition sigma: 53-69. Bell, Robert E. (1986): The Establishment of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia/Vancouver: Ministry of Education and Culture. Haug, Guy / Christian Tauch (2001): Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education (II), Follow-up Report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences, Helsinki, National Board of Education, NARIC Finland.

86

Kalliope Agapiou-Josephides

Ministry of Education and Culture, Committee on Educational Reform (2004): Democratic and Humanistic Education in the European Polity. Manifest for Educational Reform, Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. Reichert, Sybille / Christian Tauch (2005): Trends IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna, Brussels: European University Association. Reinalda, Bob / Ewa Kulesza (2006): The Bologna Process-Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education, Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers (2nd revised edition). Sofianos, Chrysostomos (1986): Schools and Departments of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia: Printing Office of the Republic of Cyprus. Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus (2005): Statistics of Education 2003/ 2004, Nicosia: Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus. UNESCO (1977): Cyprus: Selected Educational Issues in Cyprus, Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (1979): The University of Cyprus: A Feasibility Study, Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (1999): Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century. Vision and Action, Paris: UNESCO. University of Cyprus (2005): Research at the University of Cyprus 2002-2004, Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future Mogens N. Pedersen

1 Introduction Observed from the outside world, Danish political science looks pretty much like a success story. From absolutely non-existing at mid-20th century political science has expanded considerably as a teaching as well as a research discipline. Political science is taught as a full programme now at three universities, and it is part of studies at – at least – another three institutions of higher learning. Political science scholars are also serving in a number research institutions and centres. The total academic staff has increased from two professors in 1959 to more than one hundred full-time scholars. Since the mid-1990s the number of PhD students has increased as well and has by 2005 passed 50. Student enrolment amounts to more than 3.000 students at the three departments, all aiming at a full degree. In relative terms political science has expanded as well, compared to other social science disciplines, such as law and economics: In 1970, only 2 per cent of all social science graduates (kandidater) that year were political scientists; in 2002 the corresponding figure was 20 per cent. During the same period social science graduates increased their weight among the total number of graduates from 14 per cent in 1960 to 38 per cent in 2000 (Andersen 2004). Danish political science has also succeeded in changing its educational profile in response to the Bologna demands, and this smooth transformation from a traditional continental programme to a Bologna “3+2” structure and to the Anglo-Saxon PhD setup has been completed over the last decade. Employment figures for political scientists have mostly been positive, Good political scientists have been in demand ever since the first graduated in 1964. One of the departments boasts about its delivery of recruits to the Danish political elite: Members of parliament, ministers, party leaders, EU commissioners, chief editors and directors of the electronic media, top civil servants, and ambassadors have had their academic training in Aarhus; gradually the other departments have also begun to deliver, but they still have some way to go, before they deserve as well to be nicknamed “hatchet nest of the Danish power elite.”

Mogens N. Pedersen

88

Danish political science research may not have proved as successful internationally, but when it was evaluated by an international team in 1996, it received good marks. More recent comparative ratings have also indicated that Danish research is in reasonably good shape. Thus it is possible to argue, with some weight, that the rapid development of Danish political science is a success story. In the following sections of this paper this view will be elaborated, scrutinized, and, to some extent, modified.

1.1

The Beginning

Before 1958 there were neither political science departments in Denmark nor a Danish tradition for studying political science in the modern sense. Said an early forerunner, a professor of jurisprudence at Copenhagen University: “Political science (never became) a traditional scheme of thinking and scholarship by us, and most people don’t even know what the term stands for. The plain fact is that political science in Denmark has to fulfil a demand that it first of all have to create” (Clausen 1956: 11; Pedersen 1997). After World War II some professors at the University of Aarhus came up with the idea to create a new educational programme, the main purpose of which would be, not primarily to lay the foundation of a new research discipline, but rather to train a new kind of civil servant. The new generalists might eventually complement the lawyers, who at the time were dominating Danish civil service, as well as the economists, who had gained prominence in the modernizing bureaucracy of the nascent welfare state. The founders had not envisaged the dramatic growth in number of students and, subsequently, in staff. Copenhagen University declined at the time to set up a similar programme. From a modest beginning in 1958 with two professors and a handful of students the Aarhus department grew in a decade to having four full professors, more than a dozen assistant and associate professors, and more than 500 students. At the end of the 1960s a social studies programme was developed at Copenhagen University, the goal being to deliver secondary school teachers; political science was an important component in this programme. After another ten years the Ministry of Education allowed the Copenhagen department to introduce a genuine political science programme, which was fairly equivalent to the one in Aarhus. Another two decades elapsed, and the third university in Odense – now University of Southern Denmark – was granted the right to train political scientists. Even if growth has levelled off, political science at the three departments is still expanding. On top of it several other departments at other institutions of higher learning are providing research

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

89

based training in political science as an integral part of other social science programmes.

1.2

The Current Situation: Bologna Process Well Under Way

During the 1990s, Danish universities had to cope with the challenges from Europe. A European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) measurement of courses has been mandatory since 2001, including of course political science courses. Danish institutions of higher education and their students and academic staff have participated in mobility programmes (ERASMUS and NORDPLUS). In several institutions increasing numbers of English-taught courses have been added to the portfolio. More important has been the complete restructuring of all academic programmes. This process started in 1993. From a curricular structure that required five to six years of continuous studies for obtaining the candidate degree (in this case: Cand. Scient. Pol.), the programmes were transformed into three-year Bachelor degree programmes, on top of which a two-year upper-level study would lead to a MA degree, still branded as a candidate degree. As if this had not been enough, a new three-year PhD degree programme, was added to the structure, creating a “3+2+3” structure. This new structure did, of course, require some efforts to introduce and set up running in a few years time. It is, however, the impression that the challenge was welcomed, and the transformation was relatively smooth. The Bologna Process in general has not given rise to much conflict in Denmark. At present other principles from the Bologna Declaration are been given lots of attention: “Quality Assurance” is the new buzzword. Considerable efforts are being devoted to participate in the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) activities and to develop operational measures of quality assurance. Danish universities, and that includes Danish political science, is certainly not lagging behind in the Bologna Process.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

Denmark is a small country with a unified university system. Copenhagen University was founded in 1479, and was for centuries the only Danish institution of higher learning. The University of Kiel (1665) and the University in

Mogens N. Pedersen

90

Kristiania/Oslo (1811) should, however, not be completely forgotten. The second Danish university was Aarhus University (1928), later to be complemented with the newer ones in Odense (1966); Roskilde (1972), and Aalborg (1974). Complete political science degrees are, however, still only been granted in Aarhus (from 1958), Copenhagen (from ca. 1980) and Odense (from 1998; now: University of Southern Denmark). The two newest universities are giving degrees in the related field of public administration, but with options for concentration on various political science topics. Their teaching perspective is, however, still mostly based upon a cross-disciplinary approach. Most of what is being said in the following does mainly relate to the three “older” and major institutions.1

2.2

Uniform Degree System

Danish universities are state universities. Even if they are considered autonomous, a considerable degree of uniformity is enforced by the government with regard to degree structures. Tuition is free at all levels, and all students are entitled to a state stipend (SU) for at least five years of study. Admission requirements are also set by the government; nationwide uniformity is monitored centrally. Each department is allowed to enrol only a certain number of students per year. Since political science is a popular programme, there is a surplus of applicants. As a result a certain level of competence (measured chiefly by grades from the secondary school system) is required, and consequently the political science programmes recruit some of the better students. Some basic figures tell the story (Table 1). Table 1: Admission to the BA at three Danish university departments, September 2005 Number of applicants Number of students admitted Threshold gradea

a

Copenhagen 717 213 9.8

Aarhus 636 235 9.2

SDU (Odense) 225 84 8.7

The Danish degree system is based on a scale (0 to 13); 6 is the “pass”-grade; 8 is defined as the (theoretical) average grade.

Students who have passed the BA examinations are allowed to proceed without further testing to the upper-level studies. At various points in time the government has contemplated to introduce selective thresholds, but so far without success, and since indeed very few students will leave the university 1

For further information about the institutions one may consult their websites: Copenhagen University (www.polsci.ku.dk), Aarhus University (www.ps.au.dk), University of Southern Denmark (www.sam.sdu.dk/politics), Roskilde University Center (www.ruc.dk/ssc), Aalborg University (www.socsci.auc.dk/institut2).

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

91

with “only” a BA, we may still consider the political science degree (Cand. Scient. Pol.), obtained – formally – after 3+2 years of study, as the only degree. Although the introduction of the three-year BA degree was intended to provide an exit from university, it has never succeeded that way, partly because traditions are long-lived, partly because the academic trade unions have not been too keen about incorporating the BA degree in their collective salary agreements, partly because there is no demand for BA’s from public sector institutions. Entrance to the PhD studies is based upon application and merit. The number of enrolments is primarily a function of available – and scarce – (salaried) positions, either drawn from the budget of the institution, or procured from external resources. It is worth mentioning at this point – although it is not a characteristic of political science only – that Danish students enter university very late. Many, maybe most, students are graduating from Secondary school (Gymnasium), when they are 19 years of age. It is also quite common to take a “sabbatical”, before commencing studies, and very often this period will last more than a year. As a result average entrance age has been as high as 23.5 years, and average age of graduation no less than 30 years. As a consequence of this “delay”, Danish PhD students also tend to be quite old before they enter the programme. This age structure – which means that Denmark nowadays has the oldest students in Europe – is increasingly becoming a concern for universities as well as for politicians, but like many other benefits of the welfare state this right is not to be tampered with. Recently the entrance age has decreased slightly. The degree structure and the “authorization” of new study programmes are decided mainly by the Ministry of Research and Technology, in earlier times by the Ministry of Education. General rules about study programmes, examinations, appointment of staff, PhD programmes etc. are laid down in ministerial decrees. An elaborate ECTS system has been functioning for several years, making it possible also to monitor the individual programmes of the universities. Some kind of uniformity is also supported by a system of external examiners (censorer); these examiners are forming a national corps for political science; they are, as part of their activities, monitoring examinations and grade levels across departments. The same monitoring functions, but on a more ad hoc basis, are conducted by a national evaluation centre (EVA; www.eva.dk) which from time to time will scrutinize and compare degree studies. For all this central regulation and monitoring there is, however, still degrees of freedom left for individual departments. Since departments tend, however, to put considerable emphasis on inter-university mobility, variations will be small with regard to the overall curriculum.

Mogens N. Pedersen

92

The picture in terms of numbers of students, and staff can be read from the following Table 2. When reading this table one should be aware of the fact that the SDU department does not only run its political science programme; it also has organized two Master programmes (Public Management and Evaluation), and it participates in the Journalism programme. Table 2: Some basic figures about three political science departments, October 2005 2005 BA-level students Upper-level students PhD students Assistant Professors Full professors

2.3

Aarhus 727 696 18 32 13

Copenhagen 694 820 27 34 9

SDU 248 155 8 17 9

Areas and Character of Teaching

It can be argued that the early and continuing success with regard to positioning the new political scientists on the labour market was made possible by the curricula structure that was originally chosen by the founding fathers in Aarhus. They did not opt for a heavy concentration on political science proper, but chose instead to develop a generalist perspective. Aarhus graduates were thoroughly trained in other disciplines as well (constitutional and administrative law, micro- and macro economics, statistics, history). This broad training probably was a most important reason, why the graduates very quickly made their way into the more prestigious sectors in the Danish civil service. They were able to communicate with lawyers as well as with economists, being well trained across a broad spectrum of social sciences. Basically, this idea of a broad generalist training with special emphasis on political science proper has been maintained at all departments until today. It is also reflected in the composition of the academic staff. “Subsidiary” or ”supporting” courses are mostly procured from the relevant other university departments, and, most important, all political science staff is kept together in one department, irrespective of sub-discipline. There may from time to time have been attempts to create some kind of “internal” autonomy for public administration, policy studies or international relations, but autonomous departments for these specializations have never been created in Denmark. Many political scientists, at least at the older universities, see it as a very important quality that political theory, international relations, comparative politics, and public administration are managed as a comprehensive and coherent unit. Over time some of the “other” elements (public law, economics etc.) have lost some relative weight, but they are still very much visible. Another

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

93

curricular development is an increasing emphasis on various types of social science methodology; these disciplines have been recognized as relevant for the future position of the graduates on the labour market. By their inclusion it has also become possible to raise the level of sophistication in PhD studies. In order to give a quick overview of the structure of the Danish political science curriculum and its structure at the BA level, the following table sets forth the University of Southern Denmark’s (SDU) study programme for six terms (semesters) (Table 3). This curricula structure can be considered typical. The other two programmes in Copenhagen and in Aarhus will only differ slightly with regard to the mix of courses and the positions of courses within the six-semester frame. From time to time some variations have been noticed with regard to examination requirements and amount of literature required. Thus a recent comparison indicated that the SDU student is required to read 50-60 per cent more pages and to pass several more exams, including written exams than students at the Copenhagen department, not to speak about students from Aalborg University and Roskilde University Centre (Christensen/ Mouritzen 2005). The very fact that such information is made public indicates that the departments of political science are nowadays competing much more for students, resources – and status – than they did a few years ago. Table 3: The political science BA programme at the University of Southern Denmark, 2005, courses and number of hours taught Course title Introductory political science Political Theory Modern political history General political science Comparative politics Political “theme-week” Sociology Statistics Political science methodology Theory of sciences Economics International politics and organization General organization theory Public administration Public law Optional course BA project Total number of teaching hours (lectures+group-work)

a

Charactera PS PS OSS PS PS PS OSS MSS MSS MSS OSS

1. 7 4 2

2.

Semester number 3. 4.

2 4 2 2

5.

6.

2 4 5 4 2

3 5

PS OSS PS OSS Opt. PS

5

4 2 6 2 x x 13

10

15

14

13

2+

Character: PS = political science; OSS = other social science; MSS = methodology of social science.

When inspecting Table 3 some readers may miss courses in Danish politics. Same observation could be made in the Aarhus and the Copenhagen cases.

Mogens N. Pedersen

94

The reason is that the instruction in Danish politics is normally given as an integral part of each of the “PS courses”. A proper university textbook on Danish politics does, as a matter of fact, not exist. Danish political science has always been characterized by its eclecticism. Obligatory textbooks are mostly used at the lower levels of study, and these textbooks tend to be standard English or American (e.g., Dunleavy; Heywood; Marsh and Stoker; Gallagher, Laver and Mair; Hague, Harrop and Breslin; Almond et al., to mention a few). One final comment on the curricular structure: written exams and term papers (“seminars”) play a considerable role in the curriculum, especially at the upper level, and students are thus well trained in written presentations as well as teamwork and oral presentations, when they graduate. The BA degree requires a small thesis, while the requirement at the MA level is a 100 page thesis, which often requires more than 6 months of concentrated work.

2.4

Research

At the beginning, in the early 1960s, there was almost no political science research in existence. Most of the first professors, in Aarhus as well as in Copenhagen, had their training in history, and they brought with them a historical emphasis, which, by the way, survived as a tradition for many years. It was only around 1970 that the first contours of “real” political science research appeared. Danish traditions for researching international security policy, municipal politics, public organization theory, legislative behaviour and party research had their beginnings around that time. Most important was it that ecological analysis of voting behaviour was grounded in the late 1960s, and that the first of a continuous series of electoral surveys was conducted in 1971. Early research was, however, very much dependent upon the efforts of individual scholars. Only the electoral surveys were conducted as modern research projects/programmes and as such supported by the Danish Social Science Research Council, which at the time had just started to function as the major and – by the way – only source of public support. In 1984, Kjell A. Eliassen and Mogens N. Pedersen (1984a, 1984b) conducted a comparative survey of Scandinavian research. They compared across themes such as: Political institutions and elite research; political participation studies; decision-making studies, public sector studies; and policy studies. With regard to Denmark they identified a limited number of “strong” areas, in which considerable amounts of studies and monographs had appeared: • •

the Danish parliament; political mobilization and participation;

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

• • •

95

elections; grass-root actions; income- and labour-market policy.

They also arrived at the conclusion that Danish scholars in several other areas had conducted some research, and that, in many ways, Danish political science research during the period 1970-1982 had been characterized by broad efforts, at least when compared to Sweden and Norway. This concentration, but at the same time diversification, was, partly, a result of the considerable growth in research personnel during this period, partly caused by a major boost from the Danish Social Science Research Council in connection with a major research programme on “The Danish Decision-Making Process” (Damgaard 2003). The next point in time in which a systematic evaluation took place was in 1996, when an international panel of professors surveyed Danish political science (International evaluering 1997). Since this report gives a – still relevant – comprehensive overview, its summary conclusion will be quoted in extenso: “The panel’s overall assessment of Danish political science is favourable. There is a positive research climate, an output in terms of publication on a par with comparable countries, and a good mix of teaching and research. Research at the Department of Political Science in Aarhus is generally of a good quality, with pockets of considerable strength. At the other large department, in Copenhagen, a promising development is underway under the umbrella of a three-pronged research programme. The much smaller department at the University of Odense is becoming impressive in its field of specialization, local government studies. Among other achievements may be mentioned the Feminist Research Centre at the University of Aalborg. The emphasis of Danish political science is on public administration, public policy, political behaviour, and international relations rather than on comparative politics, political theory and methodological development. This profile is right from the point of view of social usefulness and relevance. Political scientists seem to be as visible in public policy as in comparative countries. The standing of Danish political science in the international research community is not weak but could be stronger. Commendable efforts are being made at most departments and institutes to encourage and facilitate publications in English as well as active participation in international meetings. The number of Ph.D students is small even at the larger departments …”

The international commission also highlighted an aspect, which is not often noticed by Danish scholars: the relatively good funding situation. Facilities at the universities are often very good in terms of office space, technical and secretarial support. Library facilities are excellent. Funding for conferences and travel is also adequate. Internal funding for research is “comparatively generous” and funding from the Danish Social Science Research Council has also been available, as has research money from a few other “official” funding agencies. One could add that relatively few private foundations exist in

96

Mogens N. Pedersen

Denmark, and these sources are only in rare instances available for social science research. As said, the conclusion of the 1996 evaluation is still relevant, with some important modifications, however. The first is that a major concentration of efforts has taken place in international relations research in recent years. The Liberal-Conservative government, which was formed in 2002, decided to bring together five – scattered – research centres of development studies, conflict resolution and peace studies, foreign policy studies, Holocaust studies, and human right studies. The new amalgamated Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS; www.diis.dk), after a period of gestation, seems to have developed a potential for becoming a major – cross-disciplinary – research centre for all kinds of international studies. One still has to see, however, if the “sectorial” research of DIIS can match the vigorous build-up of IR studies and European studies, which has taken place at the universities at the same time. The second observation is that the research profile in some universities, and in particular in the Copenhagen area seems to be in a state of flux, mainly due to new appointments. Thus the Copenhagen department has visibly strengthened its research in international relations and in public administration since 1996. At the same time the Copenhagen Business School has initiated investments in public policy research (see www.cbs.dk). A similar aggressive build-up takes place in Odense, where high priority is now given to media and politics and to welfare state research. The political scientists at Aalborg University have concentrated their efforts on carrying on and developing the Danish tradition for electoral studies. Over the last decade new research specialities have gained some momentum, like – for example – political theory, empirical as well as normative. While an older generation of scholars could be described as institutionalists and behaviouralists, it is nowadays difficult to put stickers on the Danish practitioners of political science. The “New Institutionalism” does, however, have many followers, and in recent years rational choice theory has become a fashion, as have – to some extent – discourse analytical thinking and social constructivism. This is only mentioned here as indicating a general tendency towards diversification. Third remark: Doctoral studies in the Anglo-Saxon sense were introduced in Denmark as late as 1993 (Pedersen 2005). Before that time no formal training existed, and the doctoral dissertation was of the “classical” German-type. When political science was evaluated in 1996 the new PhD programmes were in their infancy, and the number of PhD students were small, even at the bigger departments. As can be seen from Table 2 the situation has changed considerably, and full programmes are now running at all departments. A National PhD School in Political Science was established in 2002 by ten institutions, with the university departments as core members. The

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

97

School is at present located at Copenhagen University, but it is a genuine national enterprise, partly financed by the members themselves, partly by a temporary grant from the Central Danish Research Training Board. The purpose of the organization is to coordinate individual activities and to develop joint courses. More than 100 PhD students are registered (www.polforsk. dk). The fourth remark concerns a major initiative that was taken by the Danish Folketing in 1997. Parliamentarians, who were concerned about a possible weakening of the powers of the parliament, supported the creation of a “Power and Democracy” research programme along the same lines as earlier Norwegian and Swedish “Power Inquiries”. The Danish study was completed in 2004. It produced no less than 49 books and 34 smaller publications, most of which dealt with various aspects of Danish society and democracy. Almost all publications appeared in Danish. Although this research programme did not result in major breakthroughs of a conceptual and theoretical nature, it definitely, by casting a wide net, provided lots of research-based knowledge with regard to all major political institutions, and, in particular, the political role of interest organizations, parties, and social movements. Problems connected with the Danish membership of EU were also given considerable attention. The main results of this 50 million D.kr. effort have been published in a concluding volume (Togeby et al. 2003a, 2003b). The programme, its initiation and its outcome has been vigorously criticized from various angles. Much of the criticism has been “political” in nature, for omissions of important aspects, more than for lack of quality. In all fairness a genuine evaluation, which would also include a comparison with the Norwegian and Swedish “Power-Inquiries”, has not yet been conducted. It remains also to be seen to what extent this major effort has enhanced the quality of political science research in general, and, not least, if this considerable investment will affect future research funding. One final comment puts the Danish political departments in perspective: In the Simon Hix (2004) comparison of European departments, the Aarhus department was ranked as number 78, Copenhagen as number 155. The remaining departments did not make it onto the list, probably for the simple reason that Hix had not included them in his dataset.

2.5

Professional Organizations and Communication

Given the modest beginning and the professional aim – to train administrative recruits with a generalist orientation – it was quite natural for Danish political scientists to join an established trade union. The Danish Association of Economists was the choice. Later this union merged with the lawyers’

98

Mogens N. Pedersen

association, and since 1970 political scientists have been organized in DJØF – Danmarks Jurist – og Økonom Forbund. Not having their own distinctive organization has some advantages, but also disadvantages. In the academic labour market the strength and specialized services of a big trade union is an obvious asset. The drawback is the absence of an organisational identity. A genuine profession will not develop in the same way as the law profession has developed – with a professional autonomy, a code of ethics, and some kind of “public service” ideology. Partly in order to address the professional problem a Danish Political Science Association was created already in 1961 by scholars from Copenhagen and Aarhus universities. Later on other departments as well as some individual members have joined. The organization is still small, rather insignificant, and certainly not able to speak on behalf of the “profession”, since its members are almost exclusively drawn from the university departments. Its main activity in Denmark is the conduct of an annual meeting, a “gettogether”. It also publishes a newsletter on the web (www.dpsa.dk), and it coordinates some of the international activities, primarily the relationship to IPSA and to the Nordic Association (NOPSA). The Danish university departments were not among the “founding fathers” of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), but they joined almost from the beginning. Danes have served the organization in many capacities, even played leading roles, and most of the Danish university departments are participating in the activities of ECPR. At present, eight Danish institutions are members of ECPR. Danish political scientists were also involved in the formation of epsNet, but at present only one department (SDU) is a member. Another disadvantage of not having a proper political science organization has been the lack of a journal for professional political scientists. The situation was, however, remedied in various ways. First, the Danish Political Science Association was among the founders of Scandinavian Political Studies, at first as a yearbook (1966-1977), later as a refereed journal. Danish language journals have also developed. POLITICA was founded by Aarhus students in 1967. It has gradually developed into a major outlet for political science in Denmark. A Marxist oriented journal GRUS has also gained importance as a critically oriented publication of good quality. In recent years a new refereed journal, POLITIK, has been published by the Copenhagen department. One should also mention that a Nordic journal, Nordisk Administrativt Tidskrift, has served the public administration scholars. The discipline of International Relations also use a number of more specialized journals, among which should be mentioned the Nordic Cooperation and Conflict. Thus, there is no lack of “local” publication possibilities for Danish scholars. These facilities are also important for the simple reason that some of the more specialized research publications on Danish politics probably would

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

99

never make their way into an international journal. This is, alas, an eternal problem for scholars from “minor language” countries. Still, it can be said that communication between the academic departments, their alumni, and the general public is lacking. Some of the universities recently have given thought to this problem of addressing the growing group of graduates, most of whom are pursuing administrative careers. Although the demand has not yet materialized, a journal or another channel of communication between the academic political science and the wider “profession” would undoubtedly fill a gap. It might eventually lead to the emergence of a genuine profession of political scientists, which does not exist at the moment. In a small country the role of political scientists is bound to differ from that of colleagues in larger societies. Danish political scientists, right from the early years, were used as government consultants and specialists, and several of them have been members of important government commissions. They were also, from the very beginning, employed as commentators, but mainly as academic specialists in connection with elections and very few other political events. This situation has changed a lot. More recently political scientists have been increasingly active as participants in the public debate, not as much in their capacity of research specialists, but rather as general “commentators” on all kinds of political events. Hardly a day passes without a political scientist commenting in the electronic media, and in the newspapers they are also very visible (Albæk et al. 2002). The visibility and the public profile of the small “profession” have changed, for good or for bad.

3 The Future Growth and diversification are the two words that best summarize the development of political science in Denmark. Growth in number of students, PhD students, academic staff, departments and resources has made it possible to create and sustain new fields of research and a broad and varied portfolio of teaching, not only at the universities, but as well in other teaching environments. An interesting aspect of this development is that inter-university mobility has been quite low, at least when we speak about the two older departments in Aarhus and Copenhagen. In particular, most members of the Aarhus department have always been educated in Aarhus. For many years members of the two big departments seldom met, and the departments did not communicate that well.

100

Mogens N. Pedersen

In recent years this situation has improved quite a bit. As already mentioned competition among the political science departments is increasing, and inter-departmental mobility is increasing as well. Still, the “import” of competent foreign scholars is negligible. Danish political science is still for the Danes. A major challenge for many political science milieus consists of handling generational change. This is, in particular, a challenge in small nations and in small departments. Two of the Danish departments are fairly big in comparative European terms. They should not be vulnerable, but even here the future looks exciting. The first generation of Danish professors and lecturers retired or passed away years ago (Rasmussen, Meyer, Clausen, Bjøl, Henningsen, Sjöblom, and others). The second generation is leaving the universities just now, or will retire within five to ten years. This generation comprises many full professors as well as associate professors. Openings will make it possible to increase inter-departmental mobility further, and, maybe, even provide fresh blood from outside Denmark. On the other hand a look at the number of PhD students and PhDs (Table 2) indicates that much of the renewal could be handled the usual Danish way that is by recruiting the “native sons and daughters”. A very real strategic problem consists in allowing the best of the Danish traditions to live on, and at the same time introduce new research priorities and new fields of studies. Danish universities receive most of their funding from the annual budget of the government. A considerable portion is derived from a fixed sum per student. Thus the growth of political science departments has depended, and still depends, on a good supply of qualified students. A decrease in number of applicants would immediately have the effect of lowering the admission thresholds (see Table 1). In a longer perspective, it might also result in a decreasing output of candidates, and further down the road also in lowering of the budget-given resources. Until now this development has not yet begun, and the departments seem to be rather safe. What might start a long term process of contraction could be an increase in unemployment among political science and administrative science candidates. Unemployment has indeed risen quite a bit over the last decade, from a low 4 per cent in the mid-1990s to 9 per cent among candidates leaving university 1997-2002. Candidates from the three “pure” political science departments do, however, fare better than the graduates from Aalborg University and Roskilde University Center (Videnskabsministeriet 2005). Their problem till now has consisted in a delayed entrance into the first job position, not in a prolonged or chronic unemployment. Even if unemployment among new candidates is now as high as 20 to 25 per cent, top rate students still find it relatively easy to get good jobs in the civil service or in other branches of the public sector.

Denmark: Political Science − Past, Present and Future

101

A number of arguments can be given for an optimistic view on the employment situation: •

•

•

A reform of the municipalities, effective from 2006, bringing their numbers down from 275 to 98, will probably in the longer run create an increasing demand for generalist administrators and managers, and political scientists will fit well in this respect. The secondary schools will increase their demand for social science graduates in general and political scientists in particular, partly because of their growth, partly because a generation replacement among social studies teachers is under way. Another demand will come from the growing sector of “life-long education” and from many other institutions of the welfare state, partly because the public sector is still growing and diversifying, partly because managerial work tends to grow in complexity, hence a demand for academic personnel.

If there are no immediate or serious threats with regard to employment for graduates, the projected development probably will lead to some reforms of the political science programmes. The “classical” political science themes may have to give way to public administration and public management, and one will also expect that methodology training will be given higher priority, since methodology skills are in demand from many of the institutions that employ or consider employing political science graduates. The optimistic expectation is, however, that the Danish political science departments will remain in good shape and serve as bases for high-quality academic education and for nationally relevant and internationally competitive research.

References Albæk, Erik / Peter Munk Christiansen / Lise Togeby (2002): Eksperter I medierne – Dagspressens brug af forskere 1961-2001. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Almond, Gabriel A. / G. Bingham Powell / Kaare Strøm Jr. / Russell J. Dalton (2003): Comparative Politics Today – A World View. New York: Longman (7th ed.). Andersen, Heine (2004): “Samfundsvidenskaber i vidensamfundet – muligheder og trusler” GRUS 72: 7-28. Christensen, Jørgen Grønnegaard / Poul Erik Mouritzen (2005): ”Den falske melodi” Weekendavisen September 2. Clausen, Sven (1956): Omrids af Statskundskab. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Damgaard, Erik (2002): “Tilløb til en magtudredning”, in: Albæk, Erik / Peter Munk Christiansen / Birgit Møller (eds.): Demokratisk set. Fest skrift til Lise Togeby. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag: 229-242. Dunleavy, Patrick G. / Brendan O’Leary (1987): Theories of the State. The Politics of Liberal Democracy. Houndmills, Basingstoke:Macmillan Education.

102

Mogens N. Pedersen

Eliassen, Kjell A. / Mogens N. Pedersen (1984a): Svensk samhällsorganisation och förvaltning. En inventering av svensk forskning. Stockholm: HSFR’s “Brytpunkt” serie. Eliassen, Kjell A. / Mogens N. Pedersen (1984b): “Omkring studiet af nogle centrale institutioner i Danmark: Et skandinavisk perspektiv” POLITICA, the Ministry of Education allowed 16: 298-315. Gallagher, Michael / Michael Laver / Peter Mair (2006): Representative Government in Modern Europe. New York: McGraw-Hill (4th ed.). Hague, Rod / Martin Harrop / Shaun Breslin (1992): Comparative Government and Politics. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hague, Rod / Martin Harrop / Shaun Breslin (1998): Comparative Government and Politics. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Macmillan (4th ed.). Heywood, Andrew (1997) Politics. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hix, Simon (2004): “Global ranking of political science departments”, Political Studies Review 2: 293-313. International evaluering af dansk samfundsvidenskabelig forskning (1997): Copenhagen: Forskningsministeriet Marsh, David / Gerry Stoker (eds.) (2002): Theory and Methods in Political Science. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave (2nd ed.). Pedersen, Mogens N. (1997): “Present at the creation”, in: Hans Daalder (ed.): Comparative European Politics: The Story of a Profession. London: Pinter: 253-266. Pedersen, Mogens N. (2005): “Doctoral Studies in Political Science in Denmark”, in: Michael Goldsmith (ed.): Doctoral Studies in Political Science – A European Comparison. epsNet Reports No. 10: 11-17. Togeby, Lise / J. Goul Andersen / P. Munk Christiansen / T. Beck Jørgensen / S. Vallgårda (2003a): Magt og Demokrati i Danmark – Hovedresultater fra Magtudredningen. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Togeby, Lise et al. (2003b): Power and Democracy in Denmark – Conclusions. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Videnskabsministeriet (2005): “De samfundsvidenskabelige uddannelser i tal”. Internet: www.videnskabsministeriet.dk.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland Erkki Berndtson

1 Introduction 1.1

Finnish Political Science since 1996

In his 1996 report on the state of political science in Finland, Dag Anckar (1996) argued that Finnish political science was very much an unknown territory for foreign scholars. One of the reasons for that was that the majority of scholarly works were published in Finnish. The language barrier had also other consequences. No foreign political scientist occupied a permanent teaching position in any of the political science departments. And although the exchange programmes for teachers and students were available, they were not very much in use. In addition, departments did not offer many courses in English or in other foreign languages. On the other hand, Finnish political scientists have always followed closely but selectively scientific developments in other countries. When the first chair in political science was established at the University of Helsinki in 1921, it was modelled in the German tradition of the “Allgemeine Staatslehre” (General Theory of the State) and German influence continued to be dominant until the end of World War II. After the War new ideas were absorbed mainly originating in the United States, as American political science emerged as a model not only for the Finnish political science (Paakkunainen 1988). The behavioural revolution became the catchword of the 1960s. David Easton’s definition of behaviouralism was often quoted, but its theoretical implications were not always understood. Behaviouralism was often wrongly defined as empirical research into voting and elections (cf. Berndtson 1997). The reception of American political science was selective in other respects, too. It is interesting, for instance, that Robert A. Dahl’s work has had very little impact on the Finnish political science. The influence of American political science was still noticeable in the mid-1990s (Anckar 1996: 201), although Finnish political scientists had at the time increasingly began to look at the European style of political science. However, that meant mainly to follow what was high on the agenda in Britain and maybe in Germany − if it was written in English. There were some but few links to French, Italian or Spanish political science, not to mention political science in the smaller European countries, with Sweden being the

104

Erkki Berndtson

only exception (because of the Swedish-speaking community of political scientists in Finland). Meanwhile, Finnish political science was largely unknown outside the country. However, one of the most severe problems, according to Anckar (1996: 192), was the internal and external fragmentation of the discipline. By internal fragmentation he referred to the lack of consensus on methodology and theory, that is, the proper subject matter of the discipline. These issues proved to be real obstacles to a fruitful exchange between Finnish political scientists and their departments. By external fragmentation, on the other hand, Anckar referred to a tendency of the discipline’s sub-fields to attempt to create new disciplines with their own identities. Looking at the discipline today, one can say that the situation is partly the same as it was ten years ago, but some things have also changed. The Finnish political science community has become much more outwardoriented, as scholars increasingly write in English and publish their work in foreign journals. On the other hand, Finnish political science students are one of the most active groups in Europe to study abroad by participating, for example, in the Erasmus programme (Berndtson 2005: 8-10). The number of courses offered in English in Finnish political science departments has multiplied, contributing to Finland becoming an attractive destination for European exchange students. The trend, which Anckar identified as internal and external fragmentation, has, however, developed further. There is a deep conflict between mainstream and non-mainstream scholars. The external fragmentation of the discipline shows particularly as far as international politics and public administration are concerned. The study of public administration has more and more emphasized the study of administration as such, moving it away from politics. New public management has become the catchword and the study of organisations and leadership now occupies the core interest in the field. As Anckar pointed out ten years ago, this is very much caused by the need to attract outside funds and to use strategies to advance one’s own position within academia: “On the one hand, the expansion of the field of public administration has clearly been encouraged as it has been regarded by the relevant authorities as one means for bringing political science closer to reality and to a fulfilment of problem-solving functions; on the other hand, members of the scientific community have in a rather short-sighted manner tried to advance their own position by applying for chairs, positions and projects that answer to the prevailing circumstances and policy formations” (Anckar 1996: 194). The study of public administration had already developed as a discipline of its own ten years ago. New departments had been created and ties to political science had begun to weaken and vanish. The same is now happening with international politics, although for different reasons. Globalization

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

105

strongly encourages to study international relations. This has generated pressure to hire new scholars in the field. As the Finnish political science community is small and there are not much funds available to increase the number of positions for teachers and researchers, this has – in turn – led to an internal fight of resources. This battle is very much a zero-sum game, but some international relations scholars have opted for a strategy to establish international relations as a discipline of its own. The most recent development shows that international relations scholars have started to identify their turf as “world politics”. How can one explain the nature of Finnish political science? There are a number of factors to be taken into account. Some explanations of the present situation were already referred to. In general, however, three major explanatory factors (Berndtson 1991b), have to be taken into account in more detail to understand the specific features of Finnish political science. First, systems of higher education have always moulded the development of individual disciplines, by offering different incentives. Higher education is dependent on financial resources and, because today all the Finnish universities are state universities, government policies and financial incentives tend to affect dayto-day practices of the universities. Second, the size of an academic community is important to understand its nature and structure. As the Finnish community of political scientists is rather small, this means, for instance, that − given their position − it is not always easy for scholars to specialise. On the other hand, the smaller an academic community is, the more weight individual scholars have on the development of the discipline. The case of Finnish political science shows that it is difficult to speak about Finnish political science in general because it is not easy to generalize from the individual case. Third, a given country’s history and political culture always forms a framework of studying society and politics. Today, this mainly shows regarding the emphasis of research on questions of European integration. Finland’s political culture as an interface periphery (Allardt 1985), connecting Sweden and Russia, has also led to an emphasis on the relevant external relations in Finnish political science.

1.2

The Finnish Higher Education System1

There are 20 universities in Finland, ten of which are multi-faculty universities (Helsinki, Åbo, Turku, Tampere, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Oulu, Joensuu, Vaasa, Lapland (Rovaniemi), three are Schools of Economics and Business Administration (Finnish- and Swedish-language Schools in Helsinki, one in 1

Basic facts concerning the Finnish higher education system are taken from the website of the Finnish Ministry of Education.

106

Erkki Berndtson

Turku), three are Universities of Technology (Helsinki, Tampere, Lappeenranta), and four are academies of art (all in Helsinki, design, fine arts, music, theatre). Universities may own teaching units outside their main location, either alone or in cooperation with other universities. Many universities also operate their own units of open universities which arrange courses in different disciplines (without a possibility to earn any degrees). All universities are state-run institutions (all private universities became state universities in the beginning of the 1970s) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. There is also a National Defence College under the Ministry of Defence. In addition, there are 29 polytechnics under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. These are mainly regionally based vocational colleges cooperating with business and industry. Polytechnics are either municipal or private institutions, but are co-financed by the state and by regional institutions. There is also one polytechnic (Police) under the auspices of the Ministry of Interior. Universities have autonomy in internal affairs. They are free to design their own curricula, structures of internal administration, and rules for admitting students. This formal autonomy is very limited, however, because of financial constraints. Universities do not have fiscal autonomy (only Helsinki and Åbo Universities have the right to generate funds of their own). The steering incentives of the Ministry are nowadays based on three-year “performance agreements”. The “performance” of universities is measured by (mainly) quantitative indicators (how many degrees and credits universities “produce” or award). The system is frustrating because it is quite unpredictable. Universities receive their resources determined by the “performance agreements”. The resources obtained are allocated by universities to faculties using their own criteria, while faculties again use their own allocation models to distribute funds to the various departments. However, because these criteria are often subject to change they do not lend themselves to much rational planning. So far, the net result has been that departments try to “produce” as many degrees and credits as possible. At the same time, university action is restricted because education is free for all students (also for foreign students) and universities do not have a right to collect tuition fees. The limited autonomy is also reflected in the strict rules concerning the degree structure. As the key principles of the Bologna Declaration were adopted by Finnish higher education (1 August 2005), the Parliament had to amend the Universities Act to be compatible with a two-tier degree structure. There were some individual protests against the principles of the Bologna Process, but no organized opposition. The main criticism was aimed at the three-year Bachelor degree, which was understood as a too short period to educate students. Some critics identified the Bologna Process as an attempt of the European Union to harmonize European higher education practices

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

107

and opposed the process because of that. At the end, a new Universities Act was passed without any difficulties. The Universities Act states the main tasks of the universities. According to this law, their task is: research, teaching, and keeping in touch with society at large. The Act defines the degree structure, languages of teaching, the composition of the governing Council in universities, the method of election of the Rector, general guidelines for the selection of students, and other important rules. More detailed instructions are given in the Government Decree on University Degrees, which specifies the Universities Act. This Decree defines the credit system and the general prerequisites of the different degrees (BA, MA, Licentiate, Doctorate). The Decree states that studies leading to the BA can include basic and upper-level studies in different scientific fields, language and communication studies, “other” studies and professional training practices. The Decree also prescribes that basic studies have to consist of courses worth at least 25 credits and studies at the upper-level courses worth at least 60 credits. A Bachelor degree must also include a thesis worth 6-10 credits. A credit system is compatible with the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits, Bachelor degree consisting of 180 credits and Master degree requiring an additional 120 credits. This means that a Bachelor degree is expected to be taken in three years, after which students are expected to complete a Master degree in two years. A PhD degree is expected to take four years. “Expected” is a keyword here, as there are no strict rules or time limits for graduation. In addition, also in the old “pre-Bologna system” students were expected to take their Master degree in five years, but this was seldom the case. An average study time for the Master in the social sciences turned out to be about six years, many students studying even ten years or longer for their degree. One of the reasons for this has been that many students are working while studying, especially at the MA level (many even full time). This is possible because the Finnish system of higher education (especially in the social sciences) has been very flexible. Although there are compulsory courses, students may also study by reading a set of books and take their examinations without any class-room teaching. Up to this day, this is one of the peculiarities of the Finnish system of higher education, although now more and more students take regular courses in their major subject. All universities use entrance examinations. General rules are laid down by faculties, although departments usually decide on the contents of the examination in their own field. As the Universities Act was amended, it was ruled, however, that all students are expected to study for an MA degree, although they have to pass their Bachelor degree first. The official policy of the Finnish Ministry of Education is that 75 percent of all those, who have been admitted at universities, should continue their studies to reach a Master degree.

Erkki Berndtson

108

The examinations can be highly competitive. For instance, in the summer of 2005 there were 604 applications to study political science at the University of Helsinki. Fifty-one students were accepted. On the other hand, there are also other routes to enter the university. In reality the total number of new political science students in Helsinki in 2005 rose to over one hundred, because the department accepted students also on the basis of previous studies in political science (e.g., in the open university or in other Finnish and foreign universities).

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science2

The answer to the question of how many institutions of higher education offer teaching in political science depends on the definition of political science. This author has reason to believe that today political science in a full sense is taught at the following six universities only: Helsinki, Åbo, Tampere, Turku, Jyväskylä and Lapland. University of Helsinki (founded in 1640) is the oldest university in Finland. It was also the only multi-faculty university until 1918. The University was established in Turku when Finland was part of Sweden. It was moved to Helsinki in 1828 when Finland had become an autonomous Grand Duchy of Russia (in 1809). The chair in political science was established in 19213 after the country’s independence (1917) in the Faculty of History and Philology (Palonen 1983). Teaching began in 1924. The main motive was to educate civil servants for the new republic. A crucial change in the status of the discipline came in 1945, when the Faculty of Social Sciences was established at the University of Helsinki and the chair in political science was moved from the Faculty of History and Philology to the new Faculty of Social Sciences. The chair was the only position in political science until the 1950s, when new positions began to be added (one assistant in 1951, one associate professor in 1952, one Swedish-language professor in 1952). The specialisation 2 3

The chapter is partly based on the information on the websites of political science departments (see, References). On the growth of the teaching staff, see Nousiainen/Anckar (1983: 336-339) and Pesonen (1977). Although politics (political philosophy) was already taught in the 17th century in Turku (see Nurmi 1983), the Helsinki chair can be understood as the birth of modern political science in Finland.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

109

within the discipline began in the early 1970s, when international politics and public administration became areas of specialisation within the discipline (a professorship in international politics had been established in 1968 and an associate professorship in public administration in 1969). In the 2005 restructuring of the curriculum (partly linked to the Bologna Process), the three subprogrammes (“the study of politics”, “the study of administration and organisations” and “world politics”) were strengthened (much due to the pressure coming from international politics and administrative studies). The selection of new students is now under the control of these three “sub-programmes”. They still have, however, a common base in joint studies. The department has close connections with the Swedish School of Social Sciences (SSSS), which is a Swedish-language undergraduate college. The School was established in 1934. In 1994, its independence came to an end when the School was made part of the Helsinki Faculty of Social Sciences. Local government had been taught at this School already for over 40 years. One of the goals of the college had been (and still is) to educate civil servants for communes with Swedish-speaking populations. Local government was not regarded an integral area of political science, rather, it was offered as part of social studies in general. However, in 1982, an associate professorship in local government was established leading to a specific subject “Political Science and Administration”. After becoming part of the Helsinki faculty, political science as a discipline in the School has become even stronger. The Helsinki department’s Swedish-language professor also teaches in the School and students graduating from there have a right to continue their studies for the Master degree at the Helsinki political science department. Åbo Akademi University is a Swedish-language university in Turku (Åbo in Swedish), which was founded in 1918. It is the second oldest multi-faculty university in Finland. It was also nearly the first Finnish university to offer political science. The chair in political science was established in 1918, but unfortunately a scholar from Sweden, who was appointed as professor died before he could take up the professorship. It was not until the 1930s when teaching in political science began. A professor in political science was elected in 1942 (Anckar 1986). The department split in 1980, when a separate Department of Public Administration was established. At the moment the status of public administration is not very clear for the respective chair is not occupied. In 1974, Åbo University spread out its activities by establishing a separate teaching unit in the city of Vaasa (Vasa in Swedish). Political science became an independent field of study in 1984. In Vasa, political science is part of the Department of Social Sciences together with economics, public administration and mass communication. Vasa political science has close relations especially with mass communication research and public administration.

110

Erkki Berndtson

University of Tampere traces its origin in the old Civic College, which was established in Helsinki in 1925 (some preliminary courses being offered already in 1919) as an institution of vocational higher learning for students lacking a high school diploma (Rasila 1973). Teaching of political science began in 1925 as “political science and history”, changing into “political science and international politics” in 1929. In 1930, the name of the College was changed into School of Social Sciences. After World War II, it developed into a strong vocational studies college and the first two teachers with the rank of professor were appointed in 1946, one being a professor of political science. A professorship in international politics was established in 1949. However, after the professor of international politics retired in 1954, the professorship was allocated to psychology. Financial problems and the fact that the Faculty of Social Sciences had been established at the University of Helsinki, compelled the College to look out for a new location. In 1960, the College moved to Tampere and a few years later (1966) received the status of a university, after it had broadened its activities in the humanities. Today, Tampere University is a multi-faculty institution offering disciplines from social sciences to medical studies. In that sense Tampere has its roots in the social sciences and it has a long history in the study of political science, international politics and public administration and local government, as all these subjects were already taught at the old Civic College. When the School moved to Tampere a professorship in public administration was established in 1965. A separate Department of Public Administration emerged due to the activities of this chair. The same happened also to the study of local government which is now taught in the Department of Regional Studies. In 2004, the Department of Public Administration was reorganised and part of the old department became the Department of Management Studies (with the sub-programmes of “administrative science”, “marketing” and “management and organisation”, and with special units of “security management” and “management and finance in higher education”. Other parts of the old department were relocated to the Department of Economics and Accounting. The development of the study of public administration in Tampere is a good illustration of the process of external fragmentation or differentiation of political science. Tampere has also led the way in separating international politics from the core of political science. In 1994, the Department of Political Science created two separate study programmes, political science and international relations, with their own curricula. The Department of Political Science and International Relations is still, however, in administrative terms one department. University of Turku was founded in 1922 as a Finnish-language private university (at that time the main language of instruction at the University of Helsinki was Swedish). Political science teaching began in 1961. A profes-

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

111

sorship in international politics was established in 1994. Today, students may choose an area of specialisation, either that of “political system” or “international relations”, although both areas have a common base in joint studies. University of Jyväskylä traces its origin to the Teacher Training Seminar founded in 1864. The seminar developed into the Jyväskylä College of Education which began to grow into a multi-faculty university in the late 1950s. An associate professorship in the social sciences was established in 1962. The first person holding that position was a political scientist. In 1973 an associate professor of political science was added. The Department of Political Science began to evolve in the 1970s (Siltaoja/Virta 1981: 46). After the restructuring of departments in the 1990s, political science merged with other disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, social and public policy, social work and gender studies to form the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy. University of Lapland (in Rovaniemi) was founded in 1979. The Department of Social Studies was established in 1991 offering international relations, administrative sciences, public law and sociology as independent subjects. Political science was added as a subject of its own in 2003. As the staffs in international relations and in political science are very small, they co-operate in teaching. However, Administrative Sciences has stayed outside of this cooperation. Besides these six universities the Swedish-language School of Economics and Business Administration in Helsinki has a history of political science. The School dates from 1909 and a chair in political science was established in 1934, first devoted to “history and political science”. In 1975 its denomination was changed to “Economic Politology”. Unfortunately in 2005 it was decided that Economic Politology should not be offered anymore as a major subject and economic politology has now been shifted to the Department of Management and Organisation with a reduced staff (in fact, only one fulltime position remains at the moment to organise courses in political science). Another minor place is the University of Oulu, where political science can be studied as a minor subject in the History department. The courses and examinations are arranged, however, by the members of the Tampere political science department. As the brief description of the departments and their history illustrates, administrative studies has become a separate entity in Tampere, Åbo, Vasa and Lapland. In Helsinki and in the SSSS, the subject is still taught as a part of political science, although in Helsinki there are pressures to strengthen the identity of this sub-field. Turku and Jyväskylä do not teach administrative studies. Instead there is the Faculty of Public Administration at the University of Vaasa (with departments of Public Management, Public Law and Sociology, and Regional Studies). The University of Kuopio also has a Department of Health Policy and Management. Vaasa and Kuopio are not re-

Erkki Berndtson

112

viewed in this chapter in more detail, as they have no connections with political science in their own universities. They illustrate, however, the development of administrative studies and, in fact, the Faculty of Public Administration in Vaasa reflects the state of administrative studies at other Finnish universities. The overall situation is summarised by the following table: Table 1: Political science and its sub-fields in the Finnish universities (2006) University Helsinki

Helsinki/SSSS (BA) Tampere Turku

Åbo Åbo/Vasa Jyväskylä Lapland

2.2

Politics International Politics Sub-programme Sub-programme “Politics” “World politics” A set of joint studies behind sub-programmes Politics and

Administrative Studies Sub-programme “Administration and organisations” Administration together

Own programme

Own programme

Own programme “International relations” Politics and International Relations together/but specialization with one Politics and International Politics together Politics and International Politics together Politics and World politics together Own programme, Own programme, but close cooperation between Politics and International Relations

Own programme Own programme

Own programme

A Small Political Science Community and a Large Student Body

The Finnish political science community is rather small. At the beginning of 2006 there were 55 teaching positions in political science departments, 24 of them were full professorships, the rest (31) were mainly positions for university lecturers, senior lecturers, senior assistants and assistants. Only 37 of these positions were tenured positions (most full professorships have a tenure status, but not all). The general picture of the situation in 2006 can be illustrated by the following figures4: 4

The figures are based on information given on the websites of the departments. They may not be 100 percent accurate, as departments use different strategies to fill their teaching positions. As Finnish universities are state-run universities, teachers usually have the status of a civil servant. If a department wants to save money, it may, however, not fill a position for a period of time. On the other hand, if a department has funds, it can appoint a person to fill a position tempo-

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

113

Table 2: Teaching staff in political science (2006) Professors Helsinki SSSS Tampere Turku Åbo Vasa Jyväskylä Lapland Total

7 1 6 3 2 1 3 1 24

University lecturers 6 2

Lecturers 1 1

1

9

1 2 1 6

Senior assistants 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 13

Assistants

2

1 3

Total 15 3 11 7 5 4 6 4 55

A period of growth in Finnish political science occurred between 1965 and 1974, when the number of teaching positions increased from 15 to 40. In 1980 there were 45 teaching positions: 11 professors, 7 associate professors, 4 lecturers and 23 assistants. Assistantships have traditionally been postgraduate positions. Because many departments are small, assistants have been accepted as full members of the department. Although assistantships have been graduate positions, assistants have at the same time been civil servants, nominated usually for a three-year period. As the number of doctorates in political science has increased over the years, but the number of academic staff has remained much the same, one solution has been to raise the status of existing positions. This meant above all a decrease in assistantships. These positions have been changed into senior assistants (and in the case of the University of Helsinki into university lecturers). Eligibility for these positions generally requires a doctorate. At the same time, all associate professors have been raised to the status of full professors. The figures above do not take into account the personnel in the departments of administrative studies (and local government). The full-time teaching staffs in these departments in Tampere (three departments), Vaasa, Lapland, Kuopio, Åbo and Vasa amount to 42 positions (18 professors, 24 others). In addition, as the Helsinki political science department consists of two professors and three others in the field of “the study of administration and organisations” and as there is one professor in the Swedish School of Social Sciences, and one lecturer at the Åbo Akademi Vasa unit, the field of admin-

rarily. The possible deviation from the figures cited should not amount to more than one or two. I have also grouped some individual cases to a class of positions they do not belong to, strictly speaking. For instance, one research director is grouped together with professors (because his duties correspond to those of professors). In all these cases, my final criteria have been a correspondence in duties.

114

Erkki Berndtson

istrative studies is relatively strong in Finland5. At the same time, the staff of political science proper has a teaching staff of 32 (13 professors and 17 others) and the field of international relations only of 18 people (8 professors and 10 others). The interpretation of these figures very much depends on who does the interpretation. International relations scholars complain that their share in the teaching staff is too small as their field seems to attract students more strongly than the other fields. Many in this area would like to opt for an independent discipline of world politics, as administrative studies have already severed their ties with political science. In this battle of positions, scholars in the field of traditional political science have usually tried to defend their old positions (without attempting to enlarge their share). The situation is frustrating from the perspective of the study of politics, as politics and world politics should form a coherent whole together with public administration. However, in small scientific communities, individual professors exercise a strong influence in their disciplines and, if personal interests become stronger than disciplinary ones, they may affect the development of the discipline as a whole more directly than is the case in larger scientific communities. On the other hand, it seems that the more pressure there is for specialisation within the discipline, the more difficult it will become for scholars to understand and integrate relevant research findings of other sub-fields of political science. The Finnish political science community is larger, however, when political scientists working in research projects are added to the total picture. The problem is, however, that these research positions are mainly temporary positions. At the beginning of 2006 there were some 90 political scientists working in research projects. Many of them were graduate students working in the various departments as well as in the national Graduate School of Political Science and International Relations (VAKAVA). As the old graduate-student assistantship system has nearly vanished, the establishment of a system of graduate schools in 1995 by the Ministry of Education was planned to take its place (Berndtson/Virtanen 2005: 22). Departments and/or academic research groups have been invited to apply for funds for graduate schools. Students of these graduate schools are selected for four years and they receive a monthly salary. In the period of 2003-2006, the programme consisted of 114 schools with a total of 1,426 doctoral students. There is an open competition for these graduate schools. Some of them are disciplineoriented national schools, as is the case in political science. The Graduate

5

These figures are somewhat interpretative. As the study of public administration has moved to “new public management”, the dividing line between public and business administration has become fuzzy. The strongest department, Tampere, is a case in point. The Department of Management Studies has a sub-programme in Marketing (staff of which has not been calculated in these figures).

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

115

School in Political Science and International Relations has been administered by the Tampere department, but it has a steering committee consisting of representatives of all political science departments in Finland. This arrangement has meant that the positions available for graduate student positions have been divided between the departments. However, this system is not very stable. When the programme was initiated in 1995, the political science school was allocated 18 positions. For the period of 2003-2006, the Ministry of Education cut the number of positions to ten.6 The above figure of 90 includes professors, post-doc researchers and postgraduate students. A problematical feature of the Finnish academic system is its inconsistency. As the number of permanent teaching positions has not grown significantly, while the number of students has in many departments tripled during the last two decades, departments are so understaffed that tenured scholars are always looking for a chance to escape their teaching duties by applying for a research sabbatical. In 2002 there were 48 political scientists with a teaching position, 20 of them were on a leave of absence.7 At the same time, the system produces new PhDs, who cannot easily find permanent positions. This was recently also noted by an international panel evaluating social science research at the University of Helsinki: “The impermanence of most of the academic positions in the Finnish university system seriously retards the research process. Scholars from the post-doctoral level to professors have to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for and applying for their next position” and “…the Finnish research policy seems to know everything about competition and nothing about continuity. As a result of this the status of postdocs is becoming intolerable” (Research Assessment Exercise 2005b: 2).

The evaluation panel focused also on “the glacial process through which higher-level positions are filled”. By this the panel referred to long hiring processes of professors. Everyone has a right to apply for a position and applicants are evaluated by outside committees. Committee members often work independently and in the field of social sciences members are seldom unanimous. This situation then leads to complaints and politicking. The result is that filling a professorship may take two to three years and during this time the position is taken care of by an acting professor. This increases the number of short-time non-permanent positions in departments, as usually an open

6

7

Political science post-graduate students can also study in other graduate schools; e.g., the Finnish Graduate School for Russian and East European Studies, National Doctoral Graduate School Consortium in the Administrative Sciences and Graduate School of Contemporary Asian Studies. The figures have been collected by research assistants Marikki Stocchetti and Kati Jääskeläinen in the project on “Degree Structures and Teaching of Political Science in Finland” (project leader: Erkki Berndtson).

Erkki Berndtson

116

professorship is temporarily filled by some university lecturer/senior assistant, whose position is then temporarily filled by some post-doc researcher. The problem for post-docs is also that “practically no research in the field of political science is conducted outside universities” (Anckar 1996: 194). The situation has become even more severe in the last ten years, as the Ministries have downsized most of their own research units and outsourced most of their research projects. The only exception is the field of international relations, in which there are two research institutes. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs is a state-supported private think tank with some 10-15 researchers. The Institute will merge with the new Finnish Institute of International Affairs, which will be launched during 2006, and will operate under the supervision of the Finnish Parliament. It is planned that there will be essentially more research posts in the new Institute than in the old one. The other research institute is the Tampere Peace Research Institute which was founded in 1970 as an independent research institute by the Ministry of Education. In 1994, the Institute became part of the University of Tampere’s Research Institute for Social Sciences. Today, it employs seven permanent researchers. In the field of social sciences the Academy of Finland is the major funding agency. The funds for social science research projects have, however, been relatively small. The projects seldom lead to cumulative research. In his 1995 report, Anckar (1996: 195) already complained that Finnish political scientists worked very much single-handedly and that big research projects were rare. The situation has not changed since. The urge to take a leave of absence can be explained by the studentteacher ratios in political science. The number of teaching staff is very small when it is related to the number of students. In 2002 there were over 2,000 students majoring in political science8: Table 3: Finnish political science students (2002) Helsinki SSSS Tampere, Politics Tampere, IR Turku Åbo Vasa Jyväskylä Lapland, IR Total

8

BA and MA students 649 142 220 257 220 80 145 198 136 2,047

Doctoral students 146 42 33 28 30 6 21 8 314

The figures have been collected by research assistants Marikki Stocchetti and Kati Jääskeläinen (see above).

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

117

As the Finnish social science degrees are multi-disciplinary degrees with one or two minor subjects (and with elective single courses), it is impossible to say exactly, how many students study political science annually. In the Finnish system, students are free to choose their minor subjects (see below in more detail). It has been estimated, however, that taken into account the departments’ own students and students taking political science as a minor, the student-teacher ratio is over 50:1 on average (the figure varies between departments from 35:1 to 65:1)9. The number of students has tripled in many departments since the 1980s, but the number of permanent teaching staff has remained very much the same. As there is much more pressure today than before to base evaluation also on teaching, this has frustrated many Finnish political scientists further. While there are now more demands made on the staff, resources tend to diminish.

2.3

Political Science Curricula10

Traditionally Finnish political science programmes have tried to cover as much of the field of mainstream political science as possible (although curricula surely reflect also research profiles of departments). Social science degrees in Finland are, however, multi-disciplinary degrees in the sense that a share of one’s major is only 70-90 credits at the Bachelor level (out of 180 credits). For the degree one has to take also one or two minor subjects as well as a set of compulsory general studies. Minor subjects can usually be chosen freely. The Master may consist of full 120 credits in one’s major (but this is not usually the case). The system can be illustrated by a curriculum of the Politics sub-programme of the University of Helsinki. In addition to studies in political science (90 credits), one has to take two small minors (basic studies, 25 credits each) or one large minor (basic and upper-level studies, 60 credits all together). The rest of the BA degree consists of 30 credits of compulsory general studies (personal study plan, orientation to labour market, constitutional law, scientific argumentation, information and communication technology (ICT) and statistics). If one has opted for two small minors, one still has to take 10 credits of freely chosen elective studies. However, a majority of students regularly take more credits for their degree than the minimum required. The Master degree consists of 120 credits, the share of political science being 85-120 credits. Credits over and above the 85 credit minimum can be gained in studies in minor subjects, additional political science courses or 9

Based on data collected by research assistants Marikki Stocchetti and Kati Jääskeläinen (see above). 10 The analysis is based on information given on the websites of departments.

Erkki Berndtson

118

freely chosen studies at a foreign university. The politics programme is organized as follows: Bachelor degree (90 credits) − units in italics are joint studies for all three sub-programmes. Basic studies (25 credits): − Introduction to Political Science, 7 credits; − The Finnish Political System and the European Union, 6 credits; − Foundations of Political Thought, 6 credits; − European Political Systems, 6 credits. The upper-level studies (65 credits): Methodological studies: − Methodology of Political Science, 5 credits; − Research on Power, 5 credits; − Quantitative Research Methods, 6 credits; − Qualitative Research Methods, 6 credits. Five substantial study units (at least three of the following; a student may take two units from other sub-programmes in the department or may compensate two with studies in a foreign exchange university): − − − − −

Modern Political Thought, 6 credits; Citizens, Institutions and Decision-making in the EU, 6 credits; The Interaction between Economics and Politics, 6 credits; Problems of Modern Democracy, 6 credits; Current Political Phenomena, 6 credits.

Thesis: − Bachelor thesis seminar (general and topic specific), 4+3 credits; − Bachelor thesis, 6 credits. The Master degree (85-96 credits); Personal study plan, 1 credit. Methodology: − Philosophy of Politics, 6 credits and/or − Advanced Studies in Research Methods, 6 credits. Three substantial study units (at least two of the following; a student can take one unit from other sub-programmes in the department or compensate one with studies in a foreign exchange university): − − −

Theory of Political Science, 8 credits; European Union and its Challenges, 8 credits; Comparative Study of Political Institutions and Political Action, 8 credits.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

119

Thesis: − Master thesis seminar (general and topic specific), 7 + 7 credits; − Master thesis, 40 credits. Practical training, 5 credits (not compulsory). The Helsinki curriculum presents a general picture of political science studies in Finland at Bachelor and Master levels. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that other Finnish political science departments differ from the Helsinki pattern in some ways. Common to all departments is to teach an introductory course in political science, basics of the Finnish political system and of the European Union, history of political thought as well as research methods, although credits allocated to these topics may vary. The Bachelor thesis (which includes a seminar) is usually 10 credits (in Helsinki 13) and a Master thesis is worth 40 credits (but 35 in Åbo). In addition, it is fair to say that literature used in teaching deals more with theories than with empirical research. If one should have to find differences between the curricula of the various departments, one could say that the two opposing sides are Jyväskylä and Turku. The difference comes mainly from the emphasis given on qualitative and quantitative research methods as well as on the emphasis given to philosophical and empirical research. Jyväskylä is strong in qualitative methods, but does not teach quantitative methods at all. Turku, on the other hand, teaches both, but the emphasis is on quantitative methods. Jyväskylä’s programme focuses on political thought (including also the original works from Plato to Marx) as well as conceptual history in general (language and politics, rhetoric, discourse analysis)11. Turku’s emphasis is more on political institutions, parties and elections (although Turku teaches also political philosophy). Åbo is somewhat similar to Turku, but it emphasizes more comparative politics in its teaching (the study of the Nordic countries, countries outside Europe). What is common to Jyväskylä, Turku and Åbo is that all students have to take courses both in politics and in international politics. Tampere and Lapland resemble each other. These departments can be placed somewhere between Jyväskylä and Turku using the above criteria. Both emphasize the teaching of political action and political movements, especially “new politics”. A detail in the Lapland teaching programme is a study unit “Northern politics”. Helsinki’s programme may be seen also as being between Jyväskylä and Turku, but the difference to Tampere and Lapland is that there is a stronger emphasis on the methodology of social sciences and on the study of power as integrative frameworks for understanding politics. There is no special emphasis on “new politics” either, but political action deals as well with traditional forms of politics as ethnic politics. As 11 The same emphasis applies to in the study units in world politics.

120

Erkki Berndtson

Helsinki is the only department which has “politics”, “study of administration and organizations” and “world politics” under the same roof, that also moulds its teaching programme. In the teaching of international relations, it is interesting to compare Helsinki and Tampere. In Helsinki the study of world politics is divided into three fields of specialization, Foreign Policy and Diplomacy, Peace and Conflict Studies and Global Political Economy and Global Governance. In Tampere the fields of specialisation are World Politics, European Studies and Peace and Conflict Studies. In Helsinki, European Studies are part of the teaching programme of the sub-programme of Politics. This example shows that the structure and contents of political science can vary according to historical traditions and personal interests within a loose framework of what is understood as the very object of the study of politics. Whatever the contents of political science teaching at Bachelor and Master levels, all Finnish political science departments face a common problem. Doctoral studies have been and still remain unorganised (Berndtson/Virtanen 2005). Doctoral programmes consist mainly of writing a thesis. Although there are requirements for course work (in Helsinki, for example, studies worth of 60 credits are required), courses are seldom really taken, as credits can usually be earned also by writing conference papers or articles for scholarly journals. The Finnish postgraduate system itself is a two-tier system, as there are two postgraduate degrees. The first one is a Licentiate degree, which consists of the course work for a doctorate and a thesis which needs not to be published. A doctoral degree, however, requires a published dissertation. In a sense the Finnish system has been similar to the German system with the licentiate as a first doctorate and a published doctoral dissertation as the Habilitation. However, with the new governmental policy of requiring universities to produce more doctorates, standards for postgraduate studies have become more flexible. Whilst still in the 1980s every postgraduate student was expected to take a licentiate degree, today this is not regarded a necessity and most students opt to go for a doctorate directly. There has been much debate on reorganising postgraduate studies, but to no avail. Even the founding of a National Graduate School in Political Science and International Relations in 1995 has not improved the situation. There are no teaching resources available for the postgraduate level, as departments are compelled to focus courses on BA and MA studies. The MA thesis is often considered to be the most important part in the educational career of a student. Supervising these theses takes a major part of the teaching load of many professors and although they also supervise doctoral dissertations, there is no curriculum to support doctoral studies. Doctoral dissertations are very much individual works, some of which are real contributions to

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

121

knowledge, but many are also just meant to formally fulfil requirements of a thesis which nobody really wants to read.

2.4

Research

It is difficult to present a systematic picture of Finnish political science research. A problem of a small scholarly community is that there is often only one person working on some research area. Many areas are covered, but from one perspective only. Besides, very few people work only with one research problem continuously. Interests change over time. A small scholarly community can concentrate on some research areas intensely at one time, but then scholars move into other areas of research and leave their previous interest for long periods of time. Political socialization and education (Heiskanen/Stolte-Heiskanen 1970; Jääsaari 1986; see also Jääsaari 1991), is one of the best examples. Another example is policy analysis and its focus on governmental processes. Policy analysis was one of the major research areas in the 1970s (Anckar 1977). Today nobody seems to be any longer interested in it. In this situation it is difficult to speak of specific research orientations or schools in Finnish political science. One way to characterize research activity is to look at research areas and main problems covered. What is studied and what is neglected? From that perspective it is interesting that the study of the Finnish political system is amazingly underdeveloped. This does not mean that Finnish politics is not studied. One can easily find studies on the social background and recruitment of Finnish government ministers (Puoskari 2002), on the power of a prime minister (Paloheimo 2002), on legislative work (Sundberg/Sinda 2003), on political parties (Michelsson 2004) and especially on political participation and elections (Pesonen et al. 1993; Paloheimo 2005). Some of the main problems in the study of political participation and elections have been the voting turnout (Martikainen et al. 2005) and new forms of political participation (Pekonen 1999; Hellsten 2001). The problem is, however, that these studies do not form any coherent picture of Finnish politics. They use different theoretical perspectives, many are only descriptions of current trends and they seldom refer to each other. The only book which tries to cover the whole Finnish political system and to interpret its basic functions and processes has been Jaakko Nousiainen’s “Suomen poliittinen järjestelmä” (The Finnish political system), which has been updated ten times since it was first published in 1959 (the last edition is from 1998). It is characteristic of the situation that as the book is partly outdated, in order to teach the basics of the Finnish political system it has been necessary to cover the topic with a collection of articles (Saukkonen 2003).

122

Erkki Berndtson

The study of Finnish politics has been given a new impetus by an interest in the politics of the European Union after Finland’s membership in 1995. These studies are linked with the study of Finnish politics, as research has very much focused on Finland’s position within the Union (Martikainen/ Tiilikainen 2000; Raunio/Tiilikainen 2003; Raunio 2006). Some other aspects of the European Union which have been covered are European elections (Mattila 2003), decision-making in the European Council (Mattila 2004a) and the costs of the enlargement (Mattila 2004b). There has not been much interest, however in the internal politics of the EU member states (see, however, Saukkonen 1999). Whatever the reason, country studies have dealt mainly with the politics outside Europe: Asian politics (Mattlin 2004), African politics (Laakso 1999), Latin American politics (Teivainen 2000) and politics of small island states (Anckar 2002). Then again, U.S. or Russian politics have not interested Finnish political scientists. The study of these countries has been left in the hands of historians and sociologists. Although issues of Finnish foreign policy and foreign policies of other European states have attracted much more attention among Finnish scholars than internal politics of these countries (e.g., Forsberg et al. 2003; Forsberg 2004, 2005), one may notice a similar interest in studying the world outside Europe than is the case in political science at large. As world politics has become the concept used to define the field, it is no wonder that international relations scholars have studied global problems (Aaltola 1999; Hakovirta 2000), global democracy (Patomäki/Teivainen 2004), Japan’s position in the international system (Korhonen 1998) and U.S.-Indonesian relations (Kivimäki 1993). In addition, Peace and Conflict Studies has always been a strong research area in Finland (Vesa 1995). Compared to many other Western countries, gender politics has attracted only a few scholars. Part of the reason is a strong male domination in the discipline. An international panel, which evaluated the research quality of the Helsinki department in 2005, stated that “one of the most significant weaknesses is the department’s striking gender imbalance” (Research Assessment Exercise 2005a: 3). And the situation is not much better in other departments. Forty-five of the 55 permanent teaching positions in the spring of 2006 were in the hands of men. Of the 24 full professors, there were three women and only one of them had a tenured position. Gender studies have dealt mainly with women as political actors (Kuusipalo 1990), women in political science (Keränen 1993; Kantola 2005), and above all, questions of equality policy (Holli 2003). The above description of Finnish political science research deals mainly with empirical research. As Anckar (1996: 198) noted, however, one feature of Finnish political science has been its tendency to reflect upon the nature, aims and approaches of political science. This is still the case and it can be

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

123

argued that this interest in theoretical and methodological questions is relatively stronger than in most other countries. There are many studies on the history of political science (e.g., Nousiainen/Anckar 1983; Paakkunainen 1985; Berndtson 1987), history of political concepts (Hänninen/Palonen 1990; Palonen 1994; Hyvärinen et al. 2003), modern political thought (Palonen 1985, 1992, 2003; Kauppi 1990; Ojakangas 2004) as well as politics and arts (Lindroos 1998). The same is true with regard to international relations, where an interest in ontological and methodological problems has produced studies on constructivism (Forsberg 1997) and critical realism (Patomäki 2002). Apart from describing research areas and problems, it is important to highlight research also by its methodology (methods, epistemology and ontology) and research traditions (theories). At one level, Finnish political science seems to be divided into two camps, which can be called mainstream and non-mainstream political science. The same difference, which can be detected in teaching programs of Turku and Jyväskylä, respectively, is also evident in research. Turku represents mainstream political science and Jyväskylä non-mainstream political science. As in teaching, Helsinki, Lapland and Tampere are somewhat in the middle. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that many scholars feel uneasy with this categorisation, as they consider themselves as not being included in these two camps. However, those scholars, who specialise in theoretical research (language and politics, political theory, politics and arts, gender politics and globalization), are usually identified as non-mainstream, while those interested in empirical political science, political institutions and electoral behaviour are considered mainstream. Of course, the division is not so much a division between theoretical and empirical political science, rather it is one between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Mainstream political science may also emphasize theoretical approaches, such as rational choice (Herne/Setälä 2000) or sociobiology (Vanhanen 1994), although in empirical research its representatives seem to rely mainly on middle-range theories (this seems to have been the case since the 1960s, see Stolte-Heiskanen/Heiskanen 1985: 181). One of the most central objects of the mainstream theoretical research has been democratic theory (Karvonen 1997; Setälä 2003), which has been discussed from a perspective of rational choice (Herne 1999) as well as from a perspective of deliberative democracy (Herne/Setälä 2005). If middle-range theorizing is common to mainstream Finnish political science, non-mainstream scholarship has also distanced itself from grand theories. Marxist state theory (e.g., Hänninen 1982) was one of these grand theories in the 1970s, but it vanished completely in the mid-1980s. Instead, an interest in problems of language developed into studies in “politics of knowledge” (Heiskanen 1983). Since then the works of Michel Foucault

124

Erkki Berndtson

(Koivusalo 2001) and Pierre Bourdieu (Kauppi 2000) have become a common point of reference. It is interesting that in many studies methods seem to have taken the role of theory, as in the study of rhetoric of political action (e.g., Kuusisto 1999). At the same time, most critically oriented political scientists in Finland today are scholars in world politics who are interested in the problems of global democracy and governance (Patomäki/Teivainen 2004). In the 2005 research evaluation of the Helsinki political science department, an international evaluation panel came to the conclusion that “in terms of the scientific quality of their research, the department is to be congratulated for the extremely high quality of those publications that they have designated as their best. They compare favourably with the quality one can find in the best Political Science department anywhere in the world” (Research Assessment Exercise 2005a: 5). The quality of individual works is, indeed, good in many cases. Research also covers a wide range of topics. A problem, however, is the haphazard nature of different projects. Another problem is the division between mainstream and non-mainstream research. Anckar wrote in 1996 that “the differences in methodological and scientific approaches that exist between various units form obstacles to a fruitful exchange between departments” (Anckar 1996: 194). This situation still prevails and has even become more visible in some cases. On the other hand, this division may soften in the future, as younger scholars seem to be more tolerant towards different approaches than the older ones. It is also possible that the division disappears, as mainstream political science seems to have become stronger in relation to non-mainstream research. There are four reasons for that. An increased interest in the study of the role of Finnish politics in the European Union has strengthened empirical political science. It has also been able to attract funds for research, which, subsequently, has raised the scholarly visibility of researchers engaged in this research area. Second, non-mainstream political science is theoretically more divided than mainstream research. Mainstream political science seems to have become even more coherent in recent years. The third factor has been a redirection of the study of public administration. New public management has become a widely accepted paradigm and its representatives fit well with the mainstream research (Temmes 1998). These three factors combine to produce a fourth factor. Academic recruitment tends to favour mainstream scholars. This will surely change the research climate of departments in the long run. However, the Finnish political science community is at least in the near future still bound to focus on theoretical questions and on global problems more than its size would indicate. This may be due to Finland’s position as an interface periphery. Finnish political scientists have a constant need to ponder and legitimize their own existence. Being a small wealthy society,

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

125

which emphasizes education, but is at the same time on a periphery12, fosters self-reflection. The Finnish system of higher education recognizes this and makes it possible. Although today’s departments face severe financial pressures to acquire outside financing, there is still a lot of room for theoretical work without any demand for social relevancy. And of course, as long as well-founded different theoretical political communities exist, academic exchanges between the different camps will continue and flourish.

2.5

Professional Communication: Internal and External13

The Finnish Political Science Association (Valtiotieteellinen yhdistys) was founded in 1935. Thus, it is one of the oldest existing political science associations in the world. Only American, Canadian and Indian national associations have a longer history (Anckar/Berndtson 1988: 20-21; Paakkunainen 1985). The Association has some 400 members. In some respects it has become weaker than it was some 20 years ago. One of the reasons is decreasing membership (it was some 600 in the 1980s). The other reason is changes in the funding policy of the Academy of Finland. The Association’s financial resources have decreased significantly during the last 15 years (until the 1990s, the activities of the Association were almost totally funded by the state). At the same time, the Association has become a pure academic association. The decreased membership is also a sign of the professionalization. When the Association was founded in 1935, most of its members were scholars in neighbouring disciplines, journalists, government officials, politicians and educated laypersons. This was still the case in the 1980s, but from the 1990s these members have increasingly left the Association and it has now become an organization, which mainly reflects the professional interests of political scientists. This may be seen for instance in the development of the annual conferences of the Association (from 1968 onwards). For a long time these conferences were more like informal gatherings of the Association’s members. Today, the annual conference is much more organized and it seems to be an important part of the career advancement of younger scholars. Of 12 Periphery here refers above all to a mental condition, which is due to the language, distance and size. In order to break out from a periphery, one has to write in other languages than one’s own native language. Distance and size affect possibilities to move around and have close relations with foreign colleagues. It may be that this condition of mental periphery is slowly vanishing, as Finnish political scientists nowadays are used to write in English, travel has become cheaper and many of the younger political scientists have studied (and taken their degrees) in foreign universities. 13 Basic information on the Finnish scientific associations can be found on the websites of these associations (see References).

126

Erkki Berndtson

course, this development is good for the professionalization of the discipline, but its negative aspect is that political scientists have lost many of their contacts to the media, to politics and government. The Association began to publish a yearbook Valtio ja yhteiskunta (State and Society) already in 1941. Ten volumes were published till 1956, after which (in 1959) it was decided to begin to publish a quarterly journal Politiikka (Politics), which today is the leading journal in the field. A conscious effort to market the Finnish political science abroad was taken in 1983, when the Association launched an English book series, Books from the Finnish Political Science Association. Thus far, 21 volumes have come out. It seems, however, that the interest to continue the book series is waning for two reasons. The first books were published through the support of the Academy of Finland, but as the Academy changed its funding policy in the 1990s, subsidies for these kinds of books were also cut. The other reason is that, although it would be possible to continue the book series using other sources of funding, political scientists, who wish to publish in English today, prefer to contact well-known foreign publishers. This is of course a sign of internationalisation and maturation of the Finnish political science during the last 15 years. It must also be acknowledged that although the English-language book series helped to market the Finnish political science abroad to some extent, the books never sold well and they were mainly merit to authors themselves, who usually distributed them for free to their foreign colleagues. The Association has also ended the publication of its newsletter Politiikan tutkimus & yhteiskunta (Political Science & Society). The newsletter had been founded in 1975, but in 2000 the last issue was published. Again, one of the reasons for this measure was a financial one, as the Academy’s financial cuts made it difficult to continue the newsletter’s publication. Another reason was that the internet was considered to be a more flexible outlet for spreading information to members. The Finnish Political Science Association has been relatively active in its foreign relations. The Association joined the International Political Science Association (IPSA) in 1952. It also became an active member of the Nordic cooperation in the field when in 1964 the first gathering of the Nordic political scientists was held in Geneva in conjunction with the IPSA World Congress (Pesonen 1966). In that meeting Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish political scientists decided to launch an English-language Yearbook, Scandinavian Political Studies, the first volume subsequently coming out in 1966. After 12 volumes in 1977, it was decided to change the Yearbook into a quarterly (beginning in 1978). The Nordic cooperation led also to the arrangement of the first Nordic Political Science Conference in Oslo in 1966. The conference has proved its value and has been arranged regularly every three years.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

127

The informal cooperation of the Nordic political scientists became quickly formalised, as the Nordic Political Science Association (NOPSA) was established in 1975 by the five Nordic national associations (with the Icelandic Association joining the cooperation). The establishment of the Association made it easier to organise joint conferences and to publish Scandinavian Political Studies. At the same time, it was decided to develop forms of cooperation within international political science associations. The Nordic Association took as its role to act as a gatekeeper between Nordic political scientists and international associations. According to its rules, the NOPSA now coordinates the Nordic representation in the governing bodies of the IPSA and the ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research). There has been a very rigid rotation system, giving each four Associations (excluding Iceland) a right to nominate their members as candidates for the IPSA and ECPR executive committees in their turn. All associations have then pledged to support these candidates in the elections. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Finnish Political Science Association made some attempts to carry out cooperation with Polish and Soviet Associations, but this cooperation did not succeed well. Most Finnish political scientists were more interested in Western cooperation and especially the ECPR became an important form of scientific activity for many. Today, all Finnish political science departments (except Lapland) are ECPR members. This situation can be explained by Finland’s position as an interface periphery between Sweden and Russia. Because of political pressure from the Soviet Union after World War II, Finland sought to form close relations with the West in cultural fields (Berndtson 1991a). In political science this meant American political science at first and, increasingly from the 1970s onwards, European political science through the ECPR. At the same time, the Nordic cooperation was an important channel for this cooperation. Most political science departments, as well the Finnish Association, became also members of the European Political Science Network (epsNet), when it was launched in 2001. It must be said, however, that the epsNet has not managed to establish itself in Finland. Most political scientists are more interested in research than in the problems of teaching. Because of cultural and linguistic reasons the international cooperation within the ECPR has also been more attractive than that within the epsNet. How would Finnish political scientists react to a possible founding of the European Political Science Association? It is hard to say, as most Finnish political scientists seem to be happy to work mainly within the ECPR framework. As Anckar (1996: 205) noted in his 1996 report on the Finnish political science: “It needs to be said that much research collaboration between the universities is already taken well care of by the European Consortium for Political Research.”

128

Erkki Berndtson

On the other hand, it should be evident that developments in Europe and within the European Higher Education and Research Area will compel European political scientists to think the status of the discipline in Europe from a new perspective. Most Finnish political scientists would like to see the ECPR to develop into a European Association. For that to happen, however, the ECPR should change its organisation and enlarge its activities also to areas of teaching and lobbying. If this will not be the case, the attitude of the Finnish political scientists will probably be “to wait and see”. Another problem is an increasing external fragmentation of the discipline, as international relations scholars as well as those of administrative sciences seek their own forms of cooperation. This can be seen in the birth of scientific associations in administrative sciences and international relations. The Finnish Peace Research Association (Suomen rauhantutkimusyhdistys) was founded in 1971. It has some 225 members and it publishes a quarterly journal, Kosmopolis. Another association in the field of international relations is the Finnish International Studies Association (Kansainvälisten suhteiden tutkimuksen seura), which was founded in 1993 and has a membership of some 150. The Finnish Association for Administrative Studies (Hallinnon tutkimuksen seura) was founded in 1981. It has some 450 members and it publishes a quarterly journal Hallinnon tutkimus (Administrative Studies). These associations are targeted for multidisciplinary audiences. However, the decrease of the membership of the Finnish Political Science Association can be explained partly by the existence of these associations. They also have close ties with their international counterparts. This strengthens the status of administrative science as an independent discipline as well as demands of world politics scholars to gain that status in Finland.

3 Future Challenges of the Finnish Political Science as a Discipline The organisational growth of Finnish political science as a discipline can be summarised by dividing the development into five periods: 1921-1944 1945-1964 1965-1974 1975-1994

Origins of the discipline (Helsinki, Civic College, Åbo, Swedish School of Economics); Stabilisation of the discipline (Helsinki Faculty, professorships in the School of Social Sciences and in Turku); Growth of the discipline (Tampere and Jyväskylä, growth of teaching staff in general, international politics and public administration as areas of specialisation); Stabilization, professionalization and internationalization of the discipline (participation in IPSA, ECPR, NOPSA);

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

1995-

129

Restructuring of the discipline (financial pressures, “new public management of universities”, increased pressure for teaching and quality control, increased fragmentation of the discipline: management sciences and world politics).

In the present situation, Finnish political science faces a number of challenges. The three contextual factors, a system of higher education, a size of the discipline, and Finland’s historical and political culture will still mould the discipline in the future, although in some sense history and culture are becoming less important due to political changes in Europe. Old ties and contacts, however, do not change at once. Besides, the Finnish political science community is still very much a national community. Because of the language barrier, it is very difficult for foreign scholars to obtain a permanent academic position in Finnish universities. This is especially true in disciplines with few academic posts overall and which at the same time require teaching in the native language. On the other hand, in a small political science community, attitudes and direction of research can change abruptly, as new scholars are recruited into the profession. Consequences of academic politics are always unpredictable, especially under the current pressure to separate the study of politics, administration, and international politics (relations) from each other. The biggest challenge, however, comes from changes in the system of higher education. In the last ten years academia has experienced a total restructuring of teaching and research. As the Finnish universities are public institutions, their development is dependent on political and governmental decisions. The last ten years have not been a very good time for the social sciences, as the state has actively pursued universities to enlarge the student body, while the number of teachers has remained the same. Another question is, whether all graduating political science students will find the job that fits their education. Thus far, reports on the job market have given mixed results. It seems that political science students will find work, but not necessarily in the area in which they have been educated (Kuusisto 2002). The development of higher education has increased the frustration of the academic staff. In 1996, Anckar (1996: 205) wrote about the internationalisation process that “although the Finnish universities had begun to internationalise, this had brought with it an expansion of the university bureaucracies at the expense of the internationalisation of researchers, increasing the frustration of scholars.” The situation in general is even more frustrating today. The administrative duties of the staff have increased, because of large-scale organisational reforms (e.g., the Bologna Process). As funding has become based on results and it is expected that departments seek outside project funding for their research activities, this has forced scholars constantly to write project applications. Many complain that they do not have time to do research while they take care of their teaching and administrative duties. It is

130

Erkki Berndtson

no wonder that many teachers seek research opportunities with external funding to be able to take a leave of absence. It is hard to say if the Finnish situation is better or worse than it is in other countries. The discipline seems to muddle through, however. On the other hand, the development of the Finnish universities is uncertain. Finnish academia lives in a transition period, as the government would like to cut down the resources of higher education institutions by combining them. This may also affect many disciplines, as universities face pressure to specialise according to their strengths. A fragmentation of political science into subdisciplines and its internal confrontation between mainstream and non-mainstream research is a problem in the current situation. The fragmentation does not offer good ground to defend the discipline. As the Finnish Political Science Association has become weaker, its possibilities to advance the interests of political science have also diminished. A European Political Science Association could be one solution to these problems, as a European Higher Education and Research Area is developing fast and universities and disciplines cannot any more operate successfully only in their national context.

References Aaltola, Mika (1999): The Rhythm, Exception, and Rule in International Relations: the Case of Mad Cow Disease. Studia Politica Tamperensis No. 5, University of Tampere. Allardt, Erik (1985): Finnish Society: Relationship between Geo-political Situation and the Development of Society. Research Reports No. 33, Research Group for Comparative Sociology, University of Helsinki. Anckar, Dag (1977): “Political Science in Finland 1960-1975: From Behavioralism to Policy Analysis,” Scandinavian Political Studies 12: 105-126. Anckar, Dag (1986): Sven Lindman. Hans vetenskapssyn och vetenskapliga gärning, Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A. Humaniora 64/2, Åbo Akademi University. Anckar, Dag (1996): “Political Science in Finland,” La science politique en Europe: formation, cooperation, perspectives. Conférence d’évaluation, Paris 19 et 20 avril 1996, Paris: Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Anckar, Dag (2002): “Democratic Standard and Performance in Twelve Pacific Island States,” Pacific Affairs 2: 207-225. Anckar, Dag / Erkki Berndtson (1988): “Introduction: Centers and Peripheries, Styles and Strategies,” in: Dag Anckar / Erkki Berndtson (eds.): Political Science between the Past and the Future. Essays to Mark the 50th Anniversary of the Finnish Political Science Association, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association: 7-22. Berndtson, Erkki (1987): “The Rise and Fall of American Political Science: Personalities, Quotations, Speculations,” International Political Science Review 1: 85100.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

131

Berndtson, Erkki (1991a): “Finlandization: Paradoxes of External and Internal Dynamics,” Government and Opposition 1: 21-33. Berndtson, Erkki (1991b): “The Development of Political Science: Methodological Problems of Comparative Research,” in: David Easton / John G. Gunnell / Luigi Graziano (eds.): The Development of Political Science. A Comparative Survey, London: Routledge: 34-58. Berndtson, Erkki (1997): Behavioralism: Origins of the Concept. The XVIIth International Political Science Association World Congress. Seoul, South Korea, 17-21 August 1997. Published electronically: http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/vol/tutkimus/ julkaisut/verkko/behavior.htm. Berndtson, Erkki (2005): “Introduction: Problems and Prospects of the Erasmus Program,” in: Erkki Berndtson (ed.): Mobile Europe. Improving Faculty and Student Mobility Conditions in Europe. epsNet Reports No. 9, Paris: 7-16. Berndtson, Erkki / Turo Virtanen (2005): “Doctoral Studies in Political Science at the University of Helsinki,” in: Michael Goldsmith (ed.): Doctoral Studies in Political Science – A European Comparison. epsNet Reports No. 10, Paris: 19-25. Forsberg, Tuomas (1997): Buying Security, Selling Victories. A Constructivist Analysis of the Role of Positive Economic Sanctions in German Unification and the Dispute over the Kurile Islands. PhD dissertation, University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Forsberg, Tuomas (2004): “The Security Partnership between the EU and Russia. Why the Opportunity was Missed?” European Foreign Affairs Review 2: 247267. Forsberg, Tuomas (2005): “German Foreign Policy and the War in Iraq. Anti-Americanism, Pacifism or Emancipation?” Security Dialogue 2: 213-231. Forsberg, Tuomas / Raimo Lintonen / Christer Pursiainen / Pekka Visuri (eds.) (2003): Suomi ja kriisit. Vaaran vuosista terrori-iskuihin, Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Hakovirta, Harto (ed.) (2000): Globalism at the Crossroads. Wedges into Global Theory and Policy, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association. Heiskanen, Ilkka (1983): ”Politics Proper vs. the Politics of Knowledge,” in: Ilkka Heiskanen / Sakari Hänninen (eds.): Exploring the Basis of Politics. Five Essays on the Politics of Experience, Language, Knowledge and History, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association: 57-85. Heiskanen, Ilkka / Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen (1970): ”Oppi-ja ammattikoulunuorten mahdollisuusrakenteet, osallistumisaktiivisuus ja politiikan tuntemus,” Politiikka 3: 204-218. Hellsten, Villiina (2001): ”Uuden politiikan oikeiston mobilisaatiomahdollisuudet Suomessa,” Politiikka 1: 37-48. Herne, Kaisa (1999): ”Miksi ihmiset äänestävät?” Politiikka 2: 113-124. Herne, Kaisa / Maija Setälä (2000): ”Rationaalisen valinnan teorian rakenne ja tieteellisen edistyksen arviointi,” Politiikka 3: 180-194. Herne, Kaisa / Maija Setälä (2005): ”Deliberatiivisen demokratian ihanteet ja kokeilut,” Politiikka 3: 175-188. Holli, Anne Maria (2003): Discourse and Politics for Gender Equality in Late Twentieth Century Finland. Acta Politica 23, Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki.

132

Erkki Berndtson

Hyvärinen, Matti / Jussi Kurunmäki / Kari Palonen / Tuija Pulkkinen / Henrik Stenius (eds.) (2003): Käsitteet liikkeessä: suomalaisen poliittisen kulttuurin käsitehistoria, Tampere: Vastapaino. Hänninen, Sakari (1982): Aika, paikka, politiikka. Marxilaisen valtioteorian konstituutiosta ja metodista, Oulu: Tutkijaliitto. Hänninen, Sakari / Kari Palonen (eds.) (1990): Texts, Contexts, Concepts. Studies on Politics and Power in Language, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association. Jääsaari, Johanna (1986): “Sukupolvet, elämäntapa ja politiikka,” Politiikka 4: 258281. Jääsaari, Johanna (1991): “Political Socialization in Finland,” in: Henk Dekker / Rüdiger Meyenberg (eds.): Politics and the European Younger Generation. Political Socialization in Eastern, Central and Western Europe, Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg. Kantola, Johanna (2005): Mykät, kuurot ja kadotetut. Sukupuolten välinen tasa-arvo Helsingin yliopiston valtio-opin laitoksella. Acta Politica 29, Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki. Karvonen, Lauri (1997): Demokratisering, Lund: Studentlitteratur. Kauppi, Niilo (1990): Tel Quel: La constitution sociale d’une avant-garde. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 43, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Kauppi, Niilo (2000): The Politics of Embodiment: Habits, Power and Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. Keränen, Marja (1993): Modern Political Science and Gender: A Debate between the Deaf and the Mute, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Kivimäki, Timo (1993): Distribution of Benefits in Bargaining between a Superpower and a Developing Country. A Study of Negotiation Processes between the United States and Indonesia. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 45, Helsinki: Socieatas Scientiarum Fennica. Koivusalo, Markku (2001): “Michel Foucault ja tuottavan vallan järjestys,” in: Jarkko Tontti / Kaisa Mäkelä (eds.): Filosofien oikeus II, Helsinki: Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys: 257-294. Korhonen, Pekka (1998): Japan and Asia Pacific Integration: Pacific Romances 1968-1996, London/New York: Routledge. Kuusipalo, Jaana (1990): “Finnish Women in Top-Level Politics,” in: Marja Keränen (ed.): Finnish “Undemocracy”. Essays on Gender and Politics, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association: 13-36. Kuusisto, Riikka (1999): Western Definitions of War in the Gulf and in Bosnia: the Rhetorical Framework of the United States, British and French Leaders in Action, Helsinki: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. Kuusisto, Riikka (2002): “Valtio-oppineiden valmiudet? Tuoreiden maisterien näkemysten kartoitus,” Politiikka 1: 70-81. Laakso, Liisa (1999): Voting Without Choosing. State Making and Elections in Zimbabwe, Acta Politica 11, Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki. Lindroos, Kia (1998): Now-time/image-space: Temporalization of Politics in Walter Benjamin’s Philosophy of History and Art, SoPhi 31, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

133

Martikainen, Pekka / Tuomo Martikainen / Hanna Wass (2005): “The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors on Voter Turnout in Finland: A Register Based Study of 2.9 Million Voters,” European Journal of Political Research 5: 645-669. Martikainen, Tuomo / Teija Tiilikainen (eds.) (2000): Suomi EU: n johdossa. Tutkimus Suomen puheenjohtajuudesta 1999, Acta Politica 13, Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki. Mattila, Mikko (2003): “Why Bother? Determinants of Turnout in the European Elections,” Electoral Studies 3: 449-468. Mattila, Mikko (2004a): “Contested Decisions – Empirical Analysis of Voting in the EU Council of Ministers,” European Journal of Political Research 1: 29-50. Mattila, Mikko (2004b): “Fiscal Redistribution in the European Union and the Enlargement,” International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 4: 555-570. Mattlin, Mikael (2004): “Referendum as a Form of Zaoshi: the Instrumental Domestic Political Functions of Taiwan’s Referendum Ploy,” Issues and Studies 2: 155185. Michelsson, Rauli (2004): “Vihreä liitto Suomen puoluekarttapallolla periaateohjelmien näkökulmasta tarkasteltuna,” Politiikka 2: 65-79. Nousiainen, Jaakko (1998): Suomen poliittinen järjestelmä, Helsinki: Werner Söderström Oyj (WSOY). Nousiainen, Jaakko / Dag Anckar (eds.) (1983): Valtio ja yhteiskunta. Tutkielmia suomalaisen valtiollisen ajattelun ja valtio-opin historiasta, Porvoo-HelsinkiJuva: WSOY. Nurmi, Hannu (1983): “Valtio-oppi 1600-luvun Turun akatemiassa,” in: Jaakko Nousiainen / Dag Anckar (eds.) (1983): Valtio ja yhteiskunta. Tutkielmia suomalaisen valtiollisen ajattelun ja valtio-opin historiasta, Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: WSOY: 15-35. Ojakangas, Mika (2004): A Philosophy of Concrete Life: Carl Schmitt and the Political Thought of Late Modernity, SoPhi 77, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Paakkunainen, Kari (1985): Demokratia, tiede ja kansanvalta. Valtiotieteellisen yhdistyksen intellektuaalihistoriaa 1935-1985, Helsinki: Valtiotieteellinen yhdistys. Paakkunainen, Kari (1988): “A Periphery in Search for a Center: The Early Years of the Finnish Political Science Association,” in: Dag Anckar / Erkki Berndtson (eds.): Political Science between the Past and the Future. Essays to Mark the 50th Anniversary of the Finnish Political Science Association, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association: 25-33. Paloheimo, Heikki (2002): “Pääministerin vallan kasvu Suomessa,” Politiikka 3: 203221. Paloheimo, Heikki (ed.) (2005): Vaalit ja demokratia Suomessa, Helsinki: WSOY. Palonen, Kari (1983): “Yleisen valtio-opin perustaminen Helsingin yliopistoon,” in: Jaakko Nousiainen / Dag Anckar (eds.) (1983): Valtio ja yhteiskunta. Tutkielmia suomalaisen valtiollisen ajattelun ja valtio-opin historiasta, Porvoo-HelsinkiJuva: WSOY: 93-137. Palonen, Kari (1985): Politik als Handlungsbegriff. Horizontwandel des Politikbegriffs in Deutschland 1890-1933, Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 28, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

134

Erkki Berndtson

Palonen, Kari (1992): Politik als Vereitelung. Die Politikkonzeption in Jean-Paul Sartres’ Critique de la raison dialectique, Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot. Palonen, Kari (1994): Politics, Rhetoric and Conceptual History, Studia Politica Jyväskyläensia 6, University of Jyväskylä. Palonen, Kari (2003): Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric, Cambridge: Polity. Patomäki, Heikki (2002): After International Relations. Critical Realism and the (Re) Construction of World Politics, London/New York: Routledge. Patomäki, Heikki / TeivoTeivainen (2004): A Possible World: Democratic Transformation of Global Institutions, London/New York: Zed Books. Pekonen, Kyösti (ed.) (1999): The New Radical Right in Finland, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association. Pesonen, Pertti (1966): “Preface,” Scandinavian Political Studies 1: 5-8. Pesonen, Pertti (1977): “The Political Science Profession in Finland,” Scandinavian Political Studies 12: 29-45. Pesonen, Pertti / Risto Sänkiaho / Sami Borg (1993): Vaalikansan äänivalta. Tutkimus eduskuntavaaleista ja valitsijakunnasta Suomen poliittisessa järjestelmässä, Helsinki: WSOY. Puoskari, Minna (2002): “Suomalaisten ministereiden sosiaalinen tausta ja rekrytoituminen vuosina 1983-2001,” Politiikka 4: 328-342. Rasila, Viljo (1973): Yhteiskunnallinen korkeakoulu 1925-1966, Porvoo: WSOY. Raunio, Tapio (2006): Eurooppalaistuminen: Suomen sopeutuminen Euroopan integraatioon, Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Raunio, Tapio / Teija Tiilikainen (2003): Finland in the European Union, London: Frank Cass. Research Assessment Exercise (2005a): Evaluation Report: Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki (http://www.helsinki.fi/research2005/english/ raportit/EF_Political_Science.pdf). Research Assessment Exercise (2005b): Panel 15: Social Sciences, University of Helsinki (http://www.Hesinki.fi/research2005/english/raportit/General_Introduction_and_General_Conclusion_Social.pdf). Saukkonen, Pasi (1999): Suomi, Alankomaat ja kansallisvaltion identiteettipolitiikka: tutkimus kansallisen identiteetin poliittisuudesta, empiirinen sovellutus suomalaisiin ja hollantilaisiin teksteihin, Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Saukkonen, Pasi (ed.) (2003): Paikkana politiikka. Tietoa ja tulkintoja Suomen poliittisesta järjestelmästä, Acta Politica 26, Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki. Setälä, Maija (2003): Demokratian arvo. Teoriat, käytännöt ja mahdollisuudet, Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Siltaoja, Jarmo / Harri Virta (1981): Valtio-oppi suomalaisessa provinssiyliopistossa. Tieteenalan aseman, opetuksen ja opiskelun kehittyminen Jyväskylän yliopistossa, Julkaisuja No. 41, Valtio-opin laitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto. Stolte-Heiskanen, Veronica / Ilkka Heiskanen (1985): “Intellectual Styles and Paradigmatic Changes in Finnish Sociology and Political Science,” in: Risto Alapuro / Matti Alestalo / Elina Haavio-Mannila / Raimo Väyrynen (eds.): Small States in Comparative Perspective. Essays for Erik Allardt, Oslo: Norwegian University Press: 165-187.

The Current State of Political Science in Finland

135

Sundberg, Jan / Susanna Sinda (2003): “Riksdagsarbetet ett yrke eller förtroendeuppdrag,” Politiikka 4: 285-300. Teivainen, Teivo (2000): Enter Economy, Exit Politics. Transnational Politics of Economism and Limits to Democracy in Peru, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association. Temmes, Markku (1998): “Finland and New Public Management,” International Review of Administrative Sciences 3: 441-456. Vanhanen, Tatu (1994): “Demokratisoituminen 1990-luvun maailmassa”, Politiikka 2: 116-131. Vesa, Unto (1995): Miten rauhantutkimus tuli Suomeen. Rauhan-ja konfliktintutkimuskeskus, tutkimuksia 69, Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.

Internet Sources Political Science Departments Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki: http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/vol/english/index.htm Swedish School of Social Sciences: Political Science and Administration: http://sockom.helsinki.fi/english/majorsubj.html Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy: Political Science, University of Jyväskylä: http://www.jyu.fi/ytk/laitokset/yfi/oppiaineet/val/en/index_html Department of Social Studies, University of Lapland: − International Relations: http://www.ulapland.fi/?deptid=10848 − Political Science: http://www.ulapland.fi/?deptid=16921 Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Tampere: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/politiikka/english.html Department of Political Science, University of Turku: http://www.soc.utu.fi/valtio-oppi/english/index2.html Department of Political Science, Åbo Akademi University: http://www.abo.fi/fak/esf/lindman/statskunskap/ Department of Social Sciences: Political Science, Åbo Akademi University in Vasa: http://www.vasa.abo.fi/svf/si/

Administrative Studies Departments Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Kuopio: http://www.uku.fi/tht/english/ Department of Social Studies: Administrative Sciences, University of Lapland: http://www.ulapland.fi/?deptid=10847 Department of Economics and Accounting, University of Tampere: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/talti/english/index.htm Department of Management Studies, University of Tampere: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/jola/english.php

136

Erkki Berndtson

Faculty of Public Administration, University of Vaasa: http://lipas.uwasa.fi/ytt/english.html Department of Public Administration, Åbo Akademi University: http://www.abo.fi/fak/esf/lindman/offentlig_forvaltning/english/index.html Department of Social Sciences: Public Administration, Åbo Akademi University in Vasa: http://www.vasa.abo.fi/svf/si/

Other Departments Department of History: Political Science, University of Oulu: http://www.oulu.fi/hutk/departments.html Department of Management and Organisation: Political Sciences, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration: http://www.hanken.fi/hanken/eng/page1021.php?location_id=1&tab_id=courses &subject_id=1 Department of Regional Studies, University of Tampere: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/yhdt/english/

Research Institutes Finnish Institute of International Affairs: http://www.upi-fiia.fi/eng/welcome/ Tampere Peace Research Institute: http://www.uta.fi/tapri/eindex.html

Scientific Associations Finnish Association for Administrative Studies: http://www.uta.fi/jarjestot/hts/ Finnish International Studies Association: http://www.protsv.fi/katse/ Finnish Peace Research Association: http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/kosmo/srty.html Finnish Political Science Association: http://www.helsinki.fi/jarj/vty/

Other Institutions Finnish Ministry of Education: http://www.vn.fi/ministeriot/opm/en.jsp

The Current State of Political Science: Report on the Situation in France Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye1

1 Introduction The development of political science in France is closely linked with the duality of the French system whereby universities and a system of Grandes Ecoles (literally “Great Schools” or specialized institutes of higher learning) coexist. The latter have highly selective student recruitment and are much more independent than universities. They possess a virtual monopoly of access to management positions in public administration and large firms. Since 19452, French political science has developed in parallel with law faculties and Institutes of Political Studies (Instituts d’Etudes Politiques, IEP), thus subscribing to two distinct academic traditions:

1

2

The authors alone, and no institutions or associations to which they belong, are responsible for this report which is based on data collected from a network of colleagues from various institutions of higher learning here mentioned. We wish to thank them warmly for the indispensable documentary assistance they provided. This report follows in the footsteps of the 1996 publication by Pierre Favre (with the collaboration of Nadine Dada), much of whose empirical data remains relevant today. We suggest readers refer to that article, entitled La science politique en France, available on the epsNet website at http://www.epsnet. org/publications/State_of_Discipline.htm. In the course of his 1996 investigation, Pierre Favre analysed the content of political science curricula in-depth. Updating this is rather problematic due to the wide variety of local situations. Given the difficulties of a thorough nationwide survey in this period of the French university landscape’s rapid transformation, our report has focused on level “M2” of the Bologna process and its repercussions for political science research. The authors of this report would like to thank Pierre Favre and Erik Neveu for their critical reading of an earlier version of this paper. Of course, only the authors are responsible for the content of this report. On the history of this second institutionalization of French political science, please see the works of Pierre Favre, particularly “Histoire de la science politique” (1985: 28-41).

138

•

•

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

In law faculties, a national regulation in 1954 introduced political science as a compulsory discipline in the degree programme. The action of a few individual professors in public law (Maurice Duverger, Georges Vedel, etc.) was also decisive in institutional recognition and the independent status awarded the discipline from the 1950s onward. Thus, the majority of professional political scientists is still employed in law faculties. There is currently only one department of political science (at the University of Paris I − Panthéon-Sorbonne), and the discipline remains almost completely absent from other university branches (sociology, history, economics, etc.); The creation of Institutes of Political Studies (IEP) in 1945 played a major role in the expansion of political science as a discipline. The Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po Paris), a semi-autonomous public establishment, arose from the old Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques (ELSP), a private institution created in 1871 to contribute to the training of the French elite through teaching sciences deemed useful for government3 (economics, history, law and social sciences). With the decree of November 9, 1945, two bodies replaced the ELSP, the IEP of Paris and the National Foundation of Political Science (Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, FNSP), to further progress in the study of political science and economics. In an effort to decentralize universities, the French government of the period created at the same time as the IEP of Paris, six other regional Institutes of Political Studies (in Bordeaux, Grenoble, Strasbourg, Toulouse, Lyon and Algiers, the latter soon to be replaced by Aix-en-Provence), to which were added the Institutes of Political Studies of Rennes and Lille, established in 1990. These institutions with selective recruitment, relatively independent in comparison to the universities to which they are attached, today account for a quarter of political science instructors and contribute significantly to research in the discipline. Logically, it is within these establishments that the most important research centres of the discipline have developed.

There have been many significant dates in the institutionalization of French political science: the creation of the French Association of Political Science (Association Française de Science Politique, AFSP) in 1949; the French Political Science Review (Revue Française de Science Politique, RFSP) in 1951; the first doctoral programme in this discipline at the IEP of Paris in 1956; and the first political science department et the University of Paris I − Panthéon-Sorbonne in 1971 and the following year a centralized nationwide recruiting procedure, organized every two years to select university full pro-

3

On the origins of the discipline in France, please see the classic work by Favre (1989).

The Current State of Political Science in France

139

fessors in this discipline (following the model of law, economics and medicine). Nonetheless, this institutionalization remains largely incomplete. While French political science can today boast its own representative body and role in university selection in the Ministry of Education and Research (Section 4 of the National Council of Universities [Conseil National des Universités, CNU] which has 77 sections), as well as a significant presence in the main public research establishment (the CNRS whose Section 40 is entitled “Politics, Power and Organization”), it remains strictly dependent, in terms of teaching, on the training offered by law faculties4 and its status as a “generalist” discipline aiming to train some of the French ruling class in the IEPs.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutional Geography of Teaching Political Science in France

In all, the community of French political scientists, here meaning all those who make their living by teaching political science or doing public political science research or both, constitute slightly more than 500 individuals, of whom 63 percent have the status of teacher-researcher5 (see Table 1 below for their geographical and institutional distribution) and are part of a univer4

5

On January 15, 2004, according to official statistics released by the National Ministry of Education and Higher Education (Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche, Paris, MEN, 2004), university legal programs included 78,026 students of whom 66.7 percent were female undergraduates (level “L1”) and 61,421 Master’s level students (level “M”), 65.5 percent of whom were female. Despite widely varying local situations, one could conclude that the vast majority of these students is introduced to political science in their undergraduate studies. It is only at the degree level that specialization in political science becomes possible in a limited number of universities (notably in the Universities of Lyon II, Montpellier I, Paris I, Paris II, Paris VIII, Paris X, Rennes I or Versailles St. Quentin). In other university programs (outside the IEPs), the teaching of political science is very limited and not statistically measurable. For teacher-researchers, the total figure of 324 shall be compared with that of all teacher-researchers (full-professor and associate professor) from legal disciplines, at the start of 2004, 7,287 individuals. The political science/law ratio is therefore one political science teacher to more than 22 teachers in legal disciplines (figures from official statistics of the Ministry of National Education and Superior Education mentioned in the previous footnote).

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

140

sity structure (a faculty or an IEP). The remaining 37 percent come from institutions devoted exclusively to research (the CNRS, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [National Centre for Scientific Research] or the FNSP, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques [National Political Science Foundation]). In practice, a number of “full-time researchers” also devote some of their time at work to teaching and most “teacher-researchers” do research as well. Yet the coexistence of these two academic statuses constitute a French characteristic significantly more apparent in political science as the proportion of members who are “public full-time researchers” is considerably greater than in other comparable disciplines (such as law, history or sociology). Table 1: Number of teachers/researchers allocated to the French university establishments in 2004 Professors IEP of Aix-en-Provence IEP of Bordeaux IEP of Grenoble IEP of Lille IEP of Lyon IEP of Paris IEP of Rennes IEP of Strasbourg IEP of Toulouse University of Aix-Marseille II University of Aix-Marseille III University of Amiens University of Angers University of the Antilles-Guyanne University of Bordeaux IV University of Bourgogne University of Brest University of Cergy University of Clermont-Ferrand I University of Corse University of Evry University of Haute-Alsace University of Grenoble II University of Grenoble III University of the Havre University of Lille II University of the Littoral University of Lyon II University of Lyon III University of Marne-la-Vallée University of Montpellier I University of Montpellier III

06 06 08 03 05 13 02 03 02 01 04 03 01 01 01 01 02 02 04 03 01 04 -

Assistant Professors 03 03 09 04 05 02 01 06 03 03 07 02 04 02 04 02 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 07 01 03 01 01 03 03

Total 09 09 17 07 10 15 03 09 05 03 01 11 02 07 03 05 01 03 04 01 01 01 03 01 01 11 01 06 02 01 07 03

The Current State of Political Science in France

141

Table 1: (cont’d) Professors University of La Rochelle University of Nancy II University of Nantes University of Nice University of Paris I University of Paris II University of Paris III University of Paris V University of Paris VII University of Paris VIII University of Paris IX University of Paris X University of Paris XII University of Paris XIII University of Pau University of Perpignan University of Poitiers University of Reims University of Rennes I University of Rennes II University of the Réunion University of Rouen University of St-Etienne University of Strasbourg III (without IEP) University of Toulouse I (without IEP) University of Tours University of Versailles Saint-Quentin Total

Source:

Total

01 01 01 02 13 07 01 02 01 02 03 06 01 01 01 04 01 02 05

Assistant Professors 02 05 03 04 18 03 02 02 13 06 08 05 04 05 02 02 04 02 01 02 03 05 03 04

131

193

324

03 06 04 06 31 10 03 04 01 15 09 14 01 05 04 05 03 03 08 02 01 02 01 03 07 03 09

Ministry of the Youth, National Education and Research (2004).

The French academic of today may be either an associate professor (Maître de conférences, MCF) or a full professor (Professeur des Universités, PR). The former are recruited following a complex two-stage selection procedure. A national selection committee (partially elected by academics and partially designated by the ministry) evaluates candidates’ files each year and accepts approximately 1/4 of them. Subsequently, these qualified candidates may apply to universities with available positions. Associate professors are recruited for specific posts and have the same workload as full professors (128 hours of lectures per year). The full professors themselves are recruited via a procedure of higher education professional selection. A nationwide competition is thus organized every two years, offering between four and eight posts for the entire country. A jury of seven full professors makes the selection, based on a competition lasting a number of months, comprising many oral evaluations on at least two of the principal subdivisions of the discipline

142

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

(political sociology; international relations and institutions; administration, management and public policy; political theory/history of ideas and political thought; and social science methodology). The geography of French political science is distinguished by the presence of IEPs in certain provincial centres. Cities in which IEPs were created alongside universities are strongholds of the discipline, comprising critical centres of teaching and research, with their concentration of instructors and students ready to pursue an in-depth curriculum in the discipline. Elsewhere, the presence of political science is, aside from Paris, much more limited and random, with certain notable exceptions (Amiens, Antilles-Guyanne, Montpellier, Nancy, Nice, Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, etc.). Nonetheless, the significance of Paris remains striking. It is worth noting that Parisian institutions house almost a third of French political science instructors (112 employments). These figures can be compared to those on thesis production. In their recent article, Nicolas Mariot and Olivier Godechot calculate that 58 percent of all political science theses between 1990 and 2001 (Godechot/Mariot 2003: 69, 2004: 40-42) were produced in the region of Paris, with a marked predominance of the political science department of the University of Paris I (with a staff of 31) and the IEP Paris (with a staff of 15). In addition, many instructors who teach elsewhere than Paris reside in the capital, reinforcing its actual weight.

2.2

French Political Science Educational Framework

Application of the LMD (Licence-Mastère-Doctorat) reform incurred by the Bologna Process prompted the key French university centres (those with sufficient scope to offer education at the graduate level) to redesign their offerings, sometimes further specializing in either a research or professional orientation6. The thorough implementation of this reform at the start of the academic year of 2005 allows us to acquire a complete picture of the present situation. Table 2 reveals our inquiry’s initial findings. The data presented are limited to research-oriented education, with the eventual goal of a doctorate in political science.

6

Given the orientation of this European investigation, repercussions from the Bologna Process in terms of political science professionalism are only mentioned as a point of interest. Nonetheless, one of the important effects of the LMD reform is to strengthen professional training in French political science departments. The most common approaches have been political communication, employment linked to professional political activity both in France and at a European level, expertise in public action, and the work of international organizations.

University of Amiens IEP of Aix-en Political Provence IEP of Bordeaux University of Bordeaux IV IEP of Grenoble IEP of Lille University of Lille II University of Lyon II (with IEP) University of Montpellier I IEP of Paris

++

+ ++

++

+

+

Political Theory/ Institutions Political Philosophy ++

+

Political Economy

++

++

+ +

++

++

++

++

+ ++

++ ++

+

+

++

++

++

++

Public Policy

++

++

Political Sociology

++ +

Political History/ Historical Sociology ++

+

++

+

++

+

+

++

++

+

+ +

++

++

++

++

Comparative European International Politics Politics Relations

++

++

++

+

++

Area Studies

++

Political Communication

Table 2: Major curricula patterns in teaching political science (with research end on level M2) in France in 2005 The Current State of Political Science in France 143

University of Paris I University of Political Paris II University of Paris VIII University of Paris IX University of Paris X University of Versailles StQuentin IEP of Rennes University Rennes I

+

++

++

Political Theory/ Institutions Political Philosophy + ++

Table 2: (cont’d)

+

Political Economy

++

++ ++

+

++

++

++

+

Public Policy

++

++ ++

++

Political Sociology

+

++

Political History/ Historical Sociology ++

+

++

++

+

++ +

++

++

Comparative European International Politics Politics Relations

+

++

Area Studies

++

++

Political Communication

144 Loïc Blondiaux/Yves Déloye

++ + Source:

Political Economy

Political History/ Historical Sociology + ++

Political Sociology

++

+

++

++

Comparative European International Politics Politics Relations

++

Public Policy

Area Studies

Dominant specialization (been attested by the existence of a mention or a strong speciality on this domain). ++ Minor specialization (been attested by the existence of a course or an offer of training more reduced in this domain). Inquiry beside the correspondents of this report and consultation of the available documentation notably on Web.

University of Strasbourg III (with IEP) Political University of Toulouse I (with IEP)

Political Theory/ Institutions Political Philosophy

Table 2: (cont’d)

+

Political Communication

The Current State of Political Science in France 145

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

146

Much can be learned from such a table: •

•

• •

2.3

The decline of some traditional components of the discipline such as political philosophy and political theory (even if new experiments are attempting to re-launch this field of study) or the study of political institutions focusing on constitutional law; The importance of political sociology1 (understood here as the predominantly sociological analysis of French political phenomena) and public policies. These two sectors have become the bases of “normal” training in political science in France and will be taught in every political science programme from now on; The structural weakness of subfields such as European studies and international relations, even if the trend is towards rapid shoring up of these sectors; The emergence of a new sub-discipline, historical sociology of politics, which conveys a real intellectual closeness between history and political science2.

Prevalent Fields of Instruction

Generally, with some delays, the education on offer follows the recent evolution of French political science research: •

•

1 2

3

The emphasis on offering education in political sociology conveys, not only the traditional importance of work devoted to France and its institutions (see the preceding report of Pierre Favre in 1996), but also the strength of the “critical” sociological research trend such as that reflected in the writing of Pierre Bourdieu3. The study of “public policies” (or public action), both in terms of teaching and research, is today in full expansion and tends to constitute an al-

On this ascendancy of political sociology, see the convergent observations of Gaxie/Legavre (2004: 127-179). On this historical shift in French political science, see particularly Déloye/Voutat (2002) and Laborier/Trom (2003). The publication of this work, written under the auspices of CURAPP and GSPM, bears witness to the capacity of this sector of French political science to spread out from the single subfield of political sociology of which it was originally a branch. The importance of such disciplinary hybridization is demonstrated by the recent creation of a new research group: History and Political Science Research Group [the GRHISPO, Groupe de recherche histoire/science politique]) within the AFSP. See particulary Zimmermann (2003).

The Current State of Political Science in France

•

147

most independent subfield at the heart of the discipline, with its own conceptual vocabulary4, giving rise to its own theoretical controversies; The development of the study of international relations and research devoted to European politics is more recent but meaningful. It corresponds to the creation of specialized periodicals and professional associations, and is gaining increasing recognition5. Nonetheless, the number of teachers and specialized researchers in these fields remains low, compared to specialists in “political sociology”6.

Ultimately, French political science is characterized by a relatively unique intellectual journey compared to international paradigms. The dialogue with certain neighbouring disciplines (sociology, history and anthropology) is favoured to the detriment of other more formalized disciplines such as economics or psychology7. Case studies and research on the ground are much more widely used than survey questionnaires or comparative analyses8. Certain approaches, such as the rational choice model, are also relatively rare in the French context9 and the influence of issues arising from American political science is significantly weaker than elsewhere. However, this intellectual independence, sometimes referred to in a derogatory fashion as “provincialism,” does not prevent increasingly frequent international collaboration or the importation of analytical frameworks considered innovative, such as in the field of sociology of mobilization or the theory of international relations. More and more advanced French students do some of their studies in foreign political science departments, participate in international conferences and become familiar with international debates. The unshackling of French political science, that others would characterize as

4 5 6

7

8 9

As demonstrated by the recent release of the Dictionnaire des politiques publiques Boussaguet et al. (2005). On the topic of European issues in French university political science programs, see Politique européenne, special edition: “Enseigner l’Europe”, 14, Fall 2004. Still, this statement must be qualified since many French specialists in European issues take pains to “trivialize” these studies and agree to avoid the establishment of an independent ad hoc field, specifically sociological or institutional approaches to Europe. The implementation of the LMD reform has served to reinforce this disciplinary opening through encouraging the implementation of cross-disciplinary doctoral programs. In particular, such was the choice of the IEP of Paris where the doctoral programme is transversal, covering political science, contemporary history and sociology. On this point, see the recent work by Bachir (2000). An important exception is the study of public policies, where this paradigm has been most common these last few years, as well as some areas analysing collective action employing the rational choice model.

148

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

a perverse effect of globalization or a “joining the international mainstream,” is increasingly a reality.

2.4

Institutional Geography of French Political Science

Political science research is primarily conducted in mixed research units dependent both on universities and on the CNRS, in which full-time researchers, dependent on the CNRS or the FNSP, and university instructors work side-by-side. Consequently, figures in Table 3 on the number of fulltime researchers should also be increased by the number of teacherresearchers. In addition to researchers at the CNRS, there are a significant number of private researchers of the FNSP10 in certain research units (in Paris, Bordeaux and Grenoble). In other respects, for obvious reasons, this table only compares research centres11, integrating researchers from section 40 of the CNRS12. Thus, examination of Table 3 suggests that in principle most of these units also mobilize researchers from other sections of the CNRS. Since the 1950s, there have been a number of major research centers dependent on the FNSP in Paris13 and in Province: the CEVIPOF, Centre d’Etudes de la Vie Politique Française (Sciences Po Paris, 39 full-time researchers) focused on French political problems and, in particular, on election analysis and the CERI, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (Sciences Po Paris, 42 full-time researchers) was oriented towards international politics and area studies; the CEAN, Centre d’Etude d’Afrique Noire (Sciences Po Bordeaux, 6 researchers) specialized in the study of African 10 For more on the scientific policy of the FNSP, see the interesting 2004 report by Gérard Grunberg, scientific director of the FNSP, available on the site of Sciences Po at the following address: http://www.sciences-po.fr (heading: Recherche). 11 Therefore, our study does not consider the CNRS foreign units, such as the Maison Francaise Oxford (French House Oxford) or the Centre Marc Bloch (Berlin) where researchers from the discipline are, nonetheless, regularly posted. 12 Which explains why the Centre de Recherches Politiques Raymond Aron of EHESS (UMR 8036) or the CERSA attached to the University of Paris II − Panthéon-Assas (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches de Science Administrative, UMR 7106) are not included in our list. These two research centres are connected to section 36 of the CNRS “Sociology, Standards and Rules” and not to section 40. 13 To gauge the degree of FNSP financial support for social science research, it suffices to mention that between 1996 and 2003, research expenses of the IEP of Paris (which cover not only political science, but also history, sociology and economics) increased by 70 percent, going from under 7 millions € to approximately 12 millions (excluding salaries). On this point, see the report by Gérard Grunberg, mentioned above).

The Current State of Political Science in France

149

politics; the CERVL, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur la Vie Locale (Sciences Po Bordeaux, 12 full-time researchers), specialized in local politics; and PACTE, Politiques publiques, Action politique, Territoires (Sciences Po Grenoble, 19 full-time researchers) was oriented principally towards the study of public policies and quantitative research methods14. Table 3: Institutional and demographic data in main research centres recovering from the section 40 of the CNRS (inventory on June 2005, classification in order of numbering CNRS) Name of the research centre Identification CNRS

Laboratoire d’anthropologie des institutions et des organisations sociales (LAIOS, Paris) Centre de recherches sociologiques sur le droit et les institutions pénales (CESDIP, Paris)

UPR 9037

Number of researchers Thematic approach of recovering from the secpolitical science tion 40 and, if necessary, from the FNSP 02 Political anthropology European politics

UMR 2190

03

Centre d’étude et de recherche Travail, Organisation, Pouvoir (CERTOP, Toulouse) Centre d’études politiques de l’Europe Latine (CEPEL, Montpellier)

UMR 5044

02

UMR 5112

03

Centre d’études d’Afrique Noire (CEAN, Bordeaux)

UMR 5115

Pouvoir, action publique, territoire (CERVL, Bordeaux)

UMR 5116

Public policy (Penal policy) Sociology of law Sociology of the violence and the crime Public policy (Environmental policy)

Public Policy Comparative politics European politics Political sociology 03 Area Studies (+ 03 researchers FNSP) Comparative politics International Relations 10 Political institutions (+ 02 researchers FNSP) and territorial political behavior Public Policy European Politics Comparative politics

14 On the history of CERAT (Centre de Recherches sur la Politique, l’Administration, la Ville et le Territoire) which is one of the newer research units in the centre, see the recent book by Douillet/Zuanon (2004).

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

150

Table 3: (con’td) Name of the research centre Identification CNRS

Politiques publiques, actions politiques, territoire (PACTE, Grenoble)

UMR 5194

Groupe de recherches et d’études sur la Méditerranée et le Moyen-Orient (Lyon) Triangle: action, discours, pensée politique et économique (Lyon) Centre de recherches sur l’action politique en Europe (CRAPE, Rennes)

UMR 5195

Number of researchers Thematic approach of recovering from the secpolitical science tion 40 and, if necessary, from the FNSP 17 Public policy (Culture, (+ 05 researchers FNSP) security, management of the risks…) Historical sociology Political sociology Methodology and quantitative surveys 02 Area studies

UMR 5206

02

UMR 6051

06

Centre universitaire de recherches administratives et politiques de Picardie (CURAPP, Amiens)

UMR 6054

04

Institut de recherches et d’études sur le monde arabe et musulman (IREMAM, Aixen-Provence) Politique, religion, institutions et sociétés:mutations européennes (PRISME, Strasbourg) Laboratoire d’analyse des systèmes politiques (LASP, Nanterre)

UMR 6568

08

UMR 7072

01

UMR 7026

05

Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Pot (CEVIPOF, Paris)

UMR 7048

Centre d’études et de recherches internationales (CERI, Paris)

UMR 7050

Public policy Political sociology Political philosophy Public policy (Sanitary policy) European politics Political sociology Public policy European politics National politics Sociology of Law Historical sociology Political sociology Area studies

Public policy European politics Political sociology

Area studies (Central and Eastern Europe) Political institutions Political sociology 23 Public policy (+ 16 researchers FNSP) National politics European politics Political philosophy Political sociology Political economy 19 Area studies (+ 23 researchers FNSP) Political economy Comparative politics International relations Political sociology

The Current State of Political Science in France

151

Table 3: (con’td) Name of the research centre Identification CNRS

Centre de sociologie des organisations (CSO, Paris)

UMR 7116

Institut de recherche interdisciplinaire en socioéconomie – Centre de recherches et d’études politiques (IRIS-CREDEP, Dauphine) Centre d’études et de recherches administratives, politiques et sociales (CERAPS, Lille) Groupe de sociologie politique et morale (GSPM, Paris) Centre de recherches sur les pouvoirs locaux dans la Caraïbe (CRPLC, Martinique) Centre de recherches politiques de la Sorbonne (CRPS, Paris)

UMR 7170

Laboratoire techniques, territoires et sociétés (LATTS, Marne-la-Vallée) Centre d’Etudes sur la Chine moderne et contemporaine (Paris) Groupe d’analyse des politiques publiques (GAPP, Cachan) Communication et politique Total

Number of researchers Thematic approach of recovering from the secpolitical science tion 40 and, if necessary, from the FNSP 09 Public policy Administrative science 02 Political sociology

UMR 8026

06

Public policy European politics Political sociology

UMR 8031

01

UMR 8053

-

Public policy Political sociology Public policy International relations Political sociology

UMR 8057

03

UMR 8134

03

Public policy Political sociology National Politics Political communication Political institutions Historical sociology Public policy

UMR 8561

02

Area studies

FRE 2768

02

Public policy Sociology of law

FRE 2813

02

-

189

Political communication -

Legend: UPR = Unité Propre de Recherche; UMR = Unité Mixte de Recherche; FRE = Formation de Recherche en Evolution. Source: Web site of the CNRS, Yearbook of research centres SHS, http://web-ast.dsi/fr, June 1, 2005.

In recent years, other important research centres have sprung up such with the help of the CNRS as the IREMAN (Institut de Recherches et d’Etudes sur le Monde Arabe et Musulman) in Aix-en-Provence; CURAPP (Centre

152

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

Universitaire de Recherches Adminstratives et Politiques de Picardie) in Amiens; CERAPS (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Administratives, Politiques et Sociales) in Lille; CRPS (Centre de Recherches Politiques de la Sorbonne) in Paris; CRAPE (Centre de Recherches sur l’Action Politique en Europe) in Rennes; and the GSPE-PRISME (Groupe de Sociologie Politique Européenne − Politique, Religion, Institutions et Sociétés: Mutations Européennes) in Strasbourg. These developments demonstrate the vitality of French research in the field. This vigour is further confirmed by the annual production of political science theses: during the 2004 term, section 4 of the CNU (Conseil National des Universités), accepted 70 candidates or 38 percent of the applicants. The number of qualified candidates should be compared to the number of posts available (both in higher education and public research) which does not exceed 15 to 20 per year. This represents a structural deficiency in job opportunities for young French PhDs in political science, often condemned, despite the excellence of their academic credentials, to a precarious situation and an uncertain professional future. This constitutes one of the most critical challenges currently confronting the discipline. The dynamism of French political science research, as well as its often cross-disciplinary nature, is particularly striking if one observes the recent wholesale transformations in French political science journals15. For more than a decade, these have been extremely diversified. While the founding journals of the discipline, the Revue Française de Science Politique and, to a lesser extent, Pouvoirs remain the most widely distributed general publications, particularly in libraries, they are facing stiff competition from a considerable number of thematic or interdisciplinary journals created recently or greatly strengthened (notably the case with Politix which became Politix. Revue des sciences sociales du politique distributed by Armand Colin or Culture et Conflits, now subtitled Sociologie politique de l’international. Amidst the recent creations that effectively illustrate the transformation of the discipline’s intellectual landscape, one must include, in chronological order, the Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée (founded in 1994, this francophone journal is edited in Belgium and is devoted to the development of comparative politics); Pôle Sud (founded in 1994 by CEPEL, Centre d’Etudes Politiques de l’Europe Latine, this regional journal has specialized in the study of political realities in southern Europe); Critique Internationale (founded in 1998 by CERI, this journal specializes in international issues and cultural areas); Raison politiques (also founded in 1998, this journal plans to develop theoretical and political philosophy approaches, and more recently Politique Européenne (founded in 2000, this journal specializes in European studies). These creations, quite numerous if you consider the size of the 15 For a complete inventory of these journals, please refer to the 1996 report by Pierre Favre, previously cited (§ 1.7).

The Current State of Political Science in France

153

French community of political scientists and the state of publishing in social sciences (see Barluet 2004), reflect growing specialization within political science, in both teaching and research. A recent CNRS study establishes that some of these journals have significant international influence, though still substantially less than journals in English. Based on an ambitious bibliometrical measure16, the study ended with the following classification for political science17: out of the 42 journals that account for more than 64 percent of the citations, 18 are American (53.7 percent of the citations), ten French (23.5 percent of the citations), ten British (17.8 percent of the citations) and four are from other countries (including Belgium for the RIPC, Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée). In terms of this classification, the CNRS study considers that two journals comprise the inner circle of international journals (first-ranked): the Revue française de science politique (861 citations) and Politix (375 citations). Three other journals Pôle Sud (79 citations), the Revue internationale de politique comparée (52 citations), and Politique Africaine (35 citations) belong to the influential group of journals at the second level18.

2.5

Complementary Data on the Dynamic of National Associations and the International Role of French Political Science

French political science is characterised by a wealth of associations. Two indicators allow us to evaluate this: the importance to the discipline of the association network itself, which has no less than three associations with complementary objectives, and the number of study days or conference days organized within the discipline. The discipline’s association network is comprised of three associations: l’Association Française de Science Politique (AFSP), l’Association des Enseignants et Chercheurs en Science Politique (AECSP, The Association of Political Science Teachers and Researchers) 16 For a discussion of the bibliometrical approach employed, please see the journal Sciences de l’homme et de la société, 69, May 2004, special edition: “Les revues en sciences humaines et sociales”: 53-54. 17 Because of the particular opening of French political science, the body of political science journals considered also includes journals belonging to other disciplines (sociology, history, philosophy, anthropology, economics, and geography). Concerning only political science journals in the strictest sense, the study by CNRS included Critique Internationale, the Revue Française de Science Politique, the Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, Politix and Pôle Sud. 18 The CNRS study made special mention of the journal Critique Internationale whose recent creation lessened the weight of its presence in the count compared to more established journals. Here, refer to the study cited: 79-80.

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

154

and l’Association Nationale des Candidats aux Métiers de la Science Politique (ANCMSP, the National Association of Political Science Candidates). Founded in 1949, the AFSP numbers more than 600 individual dues-paying members (see Figure 1) and plays an important role in the organization and recognition of political science research. This association has been organizing biennial national conferences (the eighth such conference was held in Lyon in September 2005 and brought together almost 600 people). These scholarly activities are structured around ten working groups. Figure 1: Evolution and distribution of type of AFSP members since 1999 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Members AFSP/French Members AFSP + subscription RFSP/foreign Members AFSP + subscription RFSP students/French Members AFSP + subscription RFSP/French

The AECSP, founded in 1995 and 150-member strong, has assumed the role of defending the discipline’s professional concerns, and has intervened as an important interlocutor before the Ministry of Higher Education and Research during the latest university reforms. Finally, the ANCMSP, founded in 1996, offers candidates for university careers in political science a series of services (notably an updated electronic list) and oversees the transparency of recruitment procedures within the discipline. These three complementary associations, able to mobilize in conjunction with others (particularly at the time of the regular Assises de la Science Politique [Political Science Meetings]), contribute greatly to the dissemination of a significant awareness of belonging to the discipline, especially compared to that of other older and, above all, larger academic disciplines. This sociability is also responsible for the many French academic events organized around the discipline, whether they are initiated by research centres, university departments or the AFSP (that alone organizes approximately 30 days of scholarly activities a year, which

The Current State of Political Science in France

155

makes this national association distinctive in comparison to many similar organizations in Western Europe). This liveliness is even more remarkable because it does not reflect a turning inward of the discipline. These associations’ activities, through their disciplinary openness as well as their committed internationalization, boost the international involvement of French political science. The issue of the internationalization of French political science has probably been one of the most contentious topics in recent years. The recurrence of debates, especially at the time of the Assises de la Science Politique or during the AFSP national conference, has not prevented the emergence of at least two polarized views. On one hand, some believe that French political science, due to its unique intellectual and institutional characteristics, continues to marginalize itself. In the recent international ranking of university political science and international relations departments by Simon Hix’s team, elements emerge that tend to support such a diagnosis.19 Among the 400 departments, classified worldwide, and with the caveat of accepting an often debatable methodology20, no French establishment appeared above the 170th ranking (that of the IEP of Paris) and only a few other departments appear in the classification which confirms the dominant position of American political science departments (occupying nine of the top ten spots), with the University of

19 See Hix (2004). The methodology used as well as the identification of the establishments analysed was harshly criticized in volume 4 (1) of the journal of the ECPR (March 2005). This classification confirms the modest showing of French university research in international rankings, regardless of the discipline (Le Monde, 23 August 2005). The dearth of financial resources (with perhaps the exception of those establishments supported by the FNSP), the dispersal of resources, internal divisions within the discipline, and the lack of visibility of French establishments are all factors that we feel serve to explain the challenging situation of French political science, particularly as a small discipline. 20 Amongst the French political science departments ranked, the Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD, The European Institute of Business Administration, ranked 172nd) appears without any justification as to its connection to political science, as does the University of Toulouse I (335th rank) with no specification as to what parts of this establishment are included. Furthermore, the list of journals examined to measure the scientific productivity of teachers or researchers of the establishments studied deserves particular attention. With the exception of several European journals (including the Revue Française de Science Politique), it mostly consists of North American journals or more accurately Anglo-Saxon journals, for obvious reasons of proximity, thus favouring AngloSaxon universities, even often North American ones.

156

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

Paris X ranked 254th the University of Lille II, 313th, the IEP of Grenoble, 324th, and the University of Paris I, 391st21. On the other hand, one could also contend that there are many paths that will eventually converge, signalling the latent internationalization of French political science. This internationalization, despite all the debates and even obstacles associated with it, continues to advance and to significantly affect the ways of doing political science in France without necessarily provoking the dreaded levelling. Furthermore, it can be observed that the internationalization of French political science is entirely compatible with its claim to intellectual uniqueness. Amongst the structures contributing to this internationalization, it is worth distinguishing that which arises from a local dynamic, that is, specific to a given university or research establishment, and that which is related to a national policy supporting internationalization. Henceforth, in numerous university establishments (notably the IEPs, which have usually required their students to complete a year of foreign study) the practice will be to favour and do their best to encourage international student exchanges. Many research centres (to list them here is unnecessary) have also implemented policies of international cooperation that have often proven fruitful, even leading to such institutional groupings as those encouraged by the CNRS. This is particularly the case with the creation in 2005 of LEA (Laboratoire Européen Associé [European Associated Research Centre] entitled CODE, Comparer les Démocraties en Europe) which brings the IEP of Bordeaux (CERVL) together with the University of Stuttgart (ISSUS) around issues of comparing European democracies at the level of the EU, states and territories or even, for a few years now, CEPEL through LEA’s ETAPES (Espaces et Temporalités de l’Action Publique en Europe du Sud). As for others, the internationalization dynamic occurs through the publication of an edited collection, as with Anglo-Saxon publishing firms, to foster the international dissemination of research studies. CERI instituted such a policy with the partnership developed with Hurst a number of years ago (“Hurst Series on Comparative Politics and International Relations”) and the Palgrave-McMillan publications (The CERI Series in International Relations and Political Economy). Along the same lines, it is worth noting the increasingly regular participation of French institutions in the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), even if the French presence still remains highly insufficient. In 2005, a dozen French institutions were dues-paying members of this net-

21 It is likely that the methods of identifying French establishments suffered from confusion due to the labels employed. Aside from the distinction between research centres and universities, the latter are often little visible at the international level because they frequently jointly employ the name of their city (with a number) or the name of a scientific personality.

The Current State of Political Science in France

157

work (CEPEL, CURAPP, the Political Science Department of the University of Paris I, FNSP, the IEP of Aix-en-Provence, the IEP of Bordeaux, the IEP of Grenoble, the IEP of Lille, the IEP of Rennes, The IEP of Strasbourg, the IEP of Toulouse, and LATTS, Laboratoire, Techniques, Territoires et Societé). They were new in 1996. According to the number of members, France came 7th, tied with Norway (12 members), behind the United Kingdom (54 members), Germany (38 members), the USA (23 members), Spain (22 members), Italy (18 members), and Sweden (15 members). Considering the differences in financial resources and critical size of the various countries in very different contexts, it is possible to confirm Pierre Favre’s cautious diagnosis of 1996 and speak of a lasting “turnaround” in the situation22. This confirms that while the number of French participants in the ECPR sessions probably remains less than that of other comparable European countries23 (but close enough to its weight within the ECPR, 4 percent out of 300 partner institutions), the ECPR will henceforth be the focus of renewed attention. During the Budapest conference in September 2004, nine panels were devoted to new political sociological trends, such as that led by a French representative, allowing for broader popular recognition at the European level of French progress in the subject matter (both from the perspective of electoral sociology and that of collective action or even hybridization with history and sociology). This turnaround still remains fragile and must be closely monitored in the future. One cannot escape the fact that today the collective resources offered by the consortium remain underutilized by the French: very low participation in the ECPR summer schools (aside from that of Lille, devoted to quantitative methods), too few regular proposals made to ECPR panels and workshops; and more serious yet, extremely low visibility of French research within the network, which is very defined by Anglo-Saxon 22 To complete this picture, it is worth noting the annual organization of one of the four training schools of the EPCR in Lille, France (Summer School of Social Science Quantitative Methods). One should also observe that the situation has much improved in just a few years. In its strategic report of 2002, the ECPR regretted that there were only eight French partner institutions. With an increase of 50 percent in two years, the current figure bears witness to the growing involvement of French political science in the network. It is to be feared, however, that, given the impoverished situation of most of the other university centres in the discipline, it would be difficult to envisage a short-term improvement in the situation. 23 Thus, during the April 2005 meeting of the ECPR in Grenada, two working sessions out of 30 scheduled were co-directed by French participants. This proportion is almost the same (2 out of 28) as during the next meeting scheduled for April 2006. During the meeting of September 2005 in Budapest, a single session (dealing, however, with nine workshops) out of 20 scheduled was directed by a French member. Nonetheless, this statistic does not take into account workshop leaders (within a session), or individual interventions in one of the workshops.

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

158

references and themes. In a complementary manner, the European Political Science Network (epsNet) offers opportunities for the internationalization of French political science24. During the plenary conference in June 2005, organized in Paris on the site of the FNSP, many French participants contributed to the work of the session that focused particularly on the transformations in political science in Europe. Finally, at the national level, it is worth mentioning the AFSP’s policy of internationalizing its activities. Aside from the financial assistance that the latter offers its members to allow them to attend the World Conference of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) of which the AFSP is a founding member, this policy is also expressed in the growing openness of AFSP activities to colleagues from other countries and the progressive inclusion of AFSP activities in the network, alongside those of other national associations. Examples include the organization of the first conference of Belgian, French, Quebec and Swiss political associations in Lausanne in November 2005, and the prospect of common activities with the Spanish and Italian associations in 2006. All thee elements suggest caution is in order when condemning French political science for lagging behind in internationalization. In a way, a silent revolution has taken place and is serving to transform the ground of French political science substantially, at the risk, nonetheless, of aggravating the gap between institutions with long-term financial resources sufficient for this internationalization and those whose critical size and lack of financial independence are probably insurmountable obstacles.

4

Conclusion

To summarize this very schematic presentation, the position of French political science as a discipline depends on the perspective adopted. On an institutional level, this is a discipline that is quite well-entrenched, which, as we have seen, is independent in terms of recruitment, with its own teaching and research branches. The dynamism of its professional associations has significantly contributed to its wholesale recognition by public authorities. Yet it remains a “small” discipline on the national scale (in com-

24 According to the list of collective members of the network available on the latter’s web site, six French institutions were associated with it (http://www.epsnet. org/membership/collective.asp, consulted on June 30, 2005), representing a 10percent increase in collective members of the network as of this date. These are the FNSP, the Political Science Department of the University of Paris I, the IEPs of Bordeaux and Grenoble, CRAPS associated with the University of Lille II and GSPE-PRISME, associated with the University of Strasbourg III.

The Current State of Political Science in France

159

parison to other university disciplines such as law or sociology) and on the international scale (in comparison to some of its foreign counterparts). The absence of a real political science department in the universities, with the sole exception of the University of Paris I − Panthéon-Sorbonne, reveals this structural fragility. Nonetheless, the professionalization of political science studies has greatly increased in recent years under the stimulus, in particular, of the reform of higher education initiated by the Bologna Process (the “LMD” reform). Numerous universities, under the guidance of political scientists, have created professional Master level programmes in the most varied fields (public affairs, public policies, political communication, international relations, development and cooperation, etc.) that attract a growing number of students. This fragility of French political science will not prevent it being a legitimate discipline whose “epistemological maturity,” to adopt a recent expression of Pierre Favre’s25, has made meaningful progress over the last fifteen years. At social level, political scientists suffer from a relative lack of visibility in the public space, in comparison to their colleagues from more socially prominent disciplines, such as sociology, economics, history or psychology. Few political scientists can claim the status of influential “intellectual” in the French sense of the term. Some specialists from certain subfields of the discipline − following in the footsteps of electoral sociology or comparative politics or, to a lesser degree, international relations − are, however, regularly consulted by the media or public authorities. The absence of genuine Think Tanks in France grants public university research an important role. One of the principal problems remains that of publication. Lacking a real system of university publishers (with the possible exception of the Presses de Science Po, political science studies are limited to two opposite methods of circulation: the larger traditional publishers (Gallimard, Fayard, Le Seuil, and La Découverte) with the usual requirements in terms of sales putting them beyond the potential of books of this sort, and small publishers specializing in the social sciences (the main one being L’Harmattan) whose print runs are usually confidential. The crisis in social science publishing serves to reinforce the discipline’s lack of visibility in the public arena. On the intellectual level, French political science studies have mostly been widely recognized within the French university context. This recognition is conveyed in the regular awarding of prizes and bonuses to its members. But French research in many fields remains invisible at the international level. This situation is based as much on intellectual factors (specific topics 25 Nonetheless, the author notes that this maturity “has not yet produced all the effects that one might expect” and hopes that it will become increasingly ‘cumulative’ and (envisions) it covering the field of inquiry more comprehensively” (Favre 2004: 19).

160

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

of study, methods, approaches, etc.) as on structural factors (languages spoken, lesser mobility of French researchers, self-sufficiency of the French intellectual market, and so on). This may change considerably in the years to come. The greater mobility of young researchers, the multiplication of international plans and collaboration, the growing appreciation of foreign publications and French academics’ educational experiences in foreign universities comprise many aspects of an evolution, which is encouraging rapid and deep-seated change.

Annex List of the diplomas of Master of political science (level M2) with research end (in September 2005) Master “Savoir et pratiques du politique”, University Amiens. Master “Pensée et mutations politiques”, University Bordeaux IV. Master “Modes d’action politique comparés”, IEP of Aix-en-Provence. Master “Politique et développement en Afrique et dans les pays du Sud”, IEP of Bordeaux. Master “Relations internationales”, IEP of Bordeaux. Master “Action publique et gouvernance territoriale”, IEP of Bordeaux. Master “Sciences du gouvernement comparées”, IEP of Grenoble. Master “Sociétés et politiques comparées”, IEP of Lille. Master “Sociologie politique”, IEP of Lyon. Master “Histoire de la pensée politique”, IEP of Lyon. Master “Asie orientale contemporaine”, IEP of Lyon. Master “Politiques publiques et gouvernements comparés”, IEP of Lyon. Master “Relations Internationales”, IEP of Paris. Master “Sociétés et politiques comparées”, IEP of Paris. Master “Histoire et théorie du politique”, IEP of Paris. Master “Action et espaces publics en Europe”, IEP of Rennes. Master “Sociologie politique”, IEP of Toulouse. Master “Relations et sécurités internationales”, IEP of Toulouse. Master “Politique et sécurité”, IEP of Toulouse. Master “Science politique et action publique”, University Lille II. Master “Gouvernance en Europe du Sud”, University Montpellier I. Master “Société, pouvoir et identité”, University Montpellier I. Master “Etudes africaines”, University Paris I. Master “Sociologie et institutions du politique”, University Paris I. Master “Relations internationales”, University Paris I. Master “Etudes politiques”, University Paris II. Master “Relations internationales”, University Paris II. Master “Administration et politiques publiques”, University Paris II. Master “Théorie politique”, University Paris VIII.

The Current State of Political Science in France

161

Master “Sociologie politique”, University Paris VIII. Master “Sociologie du politique, action publique et communication”, University Paris IX. Master “Sociologie politique comparative”, University Paris X. Master “Etudes politiques”, University Rennes I. Master “Science politique de l’Europe”, University Strasbourg III. Master “Sciences sociales du politique”, University Strasbourg III. Master “Régulation des conflits dans l’espace public”, University Versailles SaintQuentin. For lack of a national inventory, the reproduced titles are subject to definitive capacitation.

References Bachir, Myriam (ed.) (2000): Les méthodes au concret. Démarches, formes de l’expérience et terrains d’investigation en science politique, Paris: CURAPP-PUF. Barluet, Sophie (2004): Edition de sciences humaines et sociales: le cœur en danger, Paris: PUF. Boussaguet, Laurie / Sophie Jacquot / Pauline Ravinet (eds.) (2005): Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, Paris: Press of Sciences Po. Déloye, Yves / Bernard Voutat (eds.) (2002): Faire de la science politique. Pour une analyse socio-historique du politique, Paris: Belin. Douillet, Anne-Cécile / Jean-Paul Zuanon (eds.) (2004): Quarante ans de recherche en sciences sociales : regards sur le CERAT 1963-2003, Grenoble: PUG. Favre, Pierre (1989): Naissance de la science politique en France (1870-1914), Paris: Fayard. Favre, Pierre (1985): “Histoire de la science politique”, in: Madeleine Grawitz / Jean Leca (eds.): Traité de science politique, Vol. I, Paris: PUF: 28-41. Favre, Pierre (2004): “Préface”, in: Eric Darras / Olivier Philippe (eds.): La science politique une et multiple, Paris: L’Harmattan: 7-20. Gaxie, Daniel (2004): “Science politique, sociologie politique, sciences sociales du politique”, in: Eric Darras / Olivier Philippe (eds.): La science politique une et multiple, Paris: L’Harmattan: 127-153. Godechot, Olivier / Nicolas Mariot (2003): “Devenir des candidats en science politique et "localisme": premiers résultats d’une enquête”, Palaestra 23/December: 35-74. Godechot, Olivier / Nicolas Mariot (2004): “Les deux formes du capital social. Structure relationnelle des jurys de thèses et recrutement en science politique”, Revue française de sociologie 45 (2): 35-74. Hix, Simon (2004): “European Universities in a Global Ranking of Political Science Departments,” European Political Science 3 (2): 5-23. Laborier, Pascale / Danny Trom (eds.) (2003): Historicités de l’action publique, Paris: PUF. Legavre, Jean-Baptiste (2004): “Les attractions de la sociologie”, in: Eric Darras / Olivier Philippe (eds.): La science politique une et multiple, Paris: L’Harmattan: 155-179.

162

Loïc Blondiaux / Yves Déloye

Ministry of the Youth, National Education and Research (2004): Yearbook of classification in 31-12-2003 of the staff education holder. Section 04, Paris: MEN. Zimmermann, Bénédicte (2003): “Une médiation”, in: Pierre Encrevé / Rose-Marie Lagrave (eds.): Travailler avec Bourdieu, Paris: Flammarion: 237-245.

The Current State of Political Science in Germany Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

For German political scientists, research on the history of their discipline neither is nor has been a very prominent subject1. The common belief holds that political science was first introduced to universities as part of the reeducation programme by the occupying powers after World War II, with only a few preceding chairs in the 19th century as part of the Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultäten2. In his monumental book Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland, Wilhelm Bleek (2001) calls this view into question. With convincing evidence, he traces the history of German political science back to the founding of universities in Germany in the 14th century3. In the medieval university, political science − according to Bleek − was an academic subject as part of the seven artes liberales, especially of practical philosophy. Studies in liberal arts were taught in the basic Artistenfakultät, and led the way into the three higher faculties of law, medicine, and theology. Aristotle’s, who was only rediscovered in the first half of the 13th century as the main authority in liberal arts, political and philosophical writings formed the older teaching of politics. The first lectures on politics were offered in 1389 in Vienna and 1390 in Prague; the Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt made the attendance of such lectures mandatory in 1410 and 1449 respectively4. Nevertheless, in

1

2 3

4

Nevertheless, a growing interest has to be acknowledged. In 1994 „Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft und der Politischen Theorie“ was founded as a working group of the Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (DVPW). For results of this work, cf. e.g., Bleek/Lietzmann (1996, 1999). Cf. Klingemann (1996: 87-102); p. 87, here following Bracher (1965: 452). This view is challenged by Jürgen Hartmann (2003: 17 ff.). He locates the beginnings of political science as an academic discipline in the United States at the end of the 19th century and claims that modern political science is intertwined with the emergence of modern bureaucracy and the modern state. Bleek (2001: 44). For older references to the medieval studies in political science see also Maier (1957: 260-270) and Hennis (1963).

164

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

the medieval university, politics was a subject that was taught as part of the Aristotelian canon, although it neither achieved a discrete methodology nor was it generally considered indispensable (cf. Bleek 2001: 50). A new era for political science on German territory started at the beginning of modern times and was, to a large extent, caused by the direct and indirect consequences of the Reformation. The need to educate personnel for the promotion of Protestantism and for the emerging modern state brought about the foundation between 1600 and 1800 of almost 50 new universities. Political science profited from these needs and was established for the first time as an autonomous academic discipline (cf. ibid.: 56). In addition to the normative-oriented political philosophy of the Aristotelian tradition, new fields of studies and teaching were introduced as part of Staatswissenschaften – especially statistics, financial science, cameralistics, and last, but not least, the “Politikwissenschaft”, which in a broad sense dealt with all questions of how to secure the general well-being of a political community in all its aspects5. A further institutional change can be observed at the beginning of the 19th century. The political crisis at the end of the 18th century had affected both the autonomy of the university as an institution as well as the Staatswissenschaften. While territorial fragmentation had first led to the expansion of universities – most princes had taken pride in establishing their “own” university –, this founding phase was followed by the closing of many universities at the turn of the century (cf. Müller 1990: 66). Two processes, though, both of them initiated by the Napoleonic wars, led to a different development in Prussia and some, mostly southwestern, states: first, the defeat of Prussia, that was regarded by the leading politicians as an indicator which urgently called for reforms; second, the encouragement the middle classes in the states of the Rhine League (which under Napoleonic protection had separated from the German Reich) gained from the achievements of the French Revolution. Prussia’s idea of a reform without revolution (and, as it turned out, without a constitution) relied strongly on the promotion of culture and general education, expressed in what later became known worldwide as the Humboldt’sches Bildungsideal, and on a progressive professionalization of the civil service. Both factors called for the promotion of Staatswissenschaften in general as well as a political science of the “well-constituted” state, in particular for the benefit of enlightened absolutism on the one hand (cf. Bleek 2001: 102). The rise of liberalism, on the other hand, was a driving force for the establishment of new political science chairs or a political re-designation of existing chairs, especially in Württemberg and Bavaria. As a consequence, 5

For the development of Staatswissenschaften in one of the main centres of the Enlightenment and Reformation, the 1694-founded University of Halle, cf. Rüdiger (2005).

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

165

Staatswissenschaften bloomed in Germany, mostly as a combination of politics with either law or history6. This found an abrupt end at its very peak: The participation of many Professors of Politics in the Frankfurter Nationalversammlung, the National Assembly convened in Frankfurt’s St. Paul’s Church in 1848/49 to draft an all German constitution, not only ended their personal careers after the dissolution of the Nationalversammlung, but also led to the institutional decline of the discipline in the second half of the century. Notably though, the political science concept of those years survived through its influence on the founding of political science in the United States (Bleek 2001: 189). In the second half of the 19th century, the discipline fell apart, was patronized by jurisprudence, and scrutinized by the Obrigkeitsstaat. Decline basically also went on during the Weimar Republic, despite the foundation of the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik in Berlin in 1920 (cf. Nickel 2004). This school was not considered an academic institution – at least not before its reopening in 1949. It was disregarded by academics as an institution for adult education. Definitely the Hochschule lost all its credits when the Nazis took over in 1933. Hence, altogether it can be stated that what occurred after the end of World War II in German universities was not the foundation of political science but its re-foundation. Since the first chair in political science, established at the University of Cologne in 1946, was declined by former Reichskanzler Heinrich Brüning (cf. Klingemann 1996: 87), it was left to the reopening of the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik in 1949 to provide the institutional background for a new start. This school which was integrated into the Freie Universität in 1959, had in its early years ten chairs for political science, and thus almost half of the 24 chairs that existed in Germany altogether at that time (ibid.). The decision to integrate Sozialkunde/Gemeinschaftskunde, the teaching of civics, into the curriculum of primary and secondary schools, taken by the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), the Conference of West German Ministers of Culture and Education in 1960 (cf. Mohr 1995: 18), led to a rapid growth of both faculty and students in the following years.

1.2

Current Developments

The established patterns of political science degrees at German universities, i.e. so called Diploma and Magister courses with usually nine semesters, are undergoing rapid change. The Bologna Process and its implementation policies in Germany require the general introduction of modularized consecutive 6

For a list cf. Bleek (2001: 109 f.).

166

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

Bachelor (BA) and Master (MA) programmes by the end of the decade. Some universities have responded quickly and are already running such undergraduate and graduate courses with first cohorts of students finishing their degrees; others took a longer time to establish the new scheme, still others are very reluctant to replace what is regarded as traditional yet well-proven system of high quality with a degree structure which to many seems to be a pitiful good-bye to Humboldt’s ideas of universitas. There is no escape from the decisions of the German Ministers of Education and Science both at the federal and the state level to implement the Bologna Declaration and the results of its follow-up conferences in Prague, Berlin, and Bergen. Therefore, it seems highly likely that the landscape of German higher education will show a co-existence of the old and the new for some time, before it will be no longer feasible – and financially impossible – to cling to the traditional patterns. A little trick used by some “reformers” to avoid the consequences of too much change is to fill old wine into new bottles, in other words, take the first two-thirds of the former German Diploma or Magister curricula and call them undergraduate BA courses and the contents of the last third and rename it MA, respectively (enriched with some of the now required gadgets of professional training). Whether this practice will be discovered and halted by the accreditation agencies remains to be seen. The process of adaptation might be accelerated by the market. Students will, most probably, follow the Bologna promises of higher mobility, easier comparability and better access to the (European) labour market through the new degrees – so long as these political pledges become true and are not hindered by national policies in order to protect universities and graduates from disagreeable competition. German universities and their departments of political science are confronted with additional problems which are also reflected in the Bologna Process. First, the increasing number of students is not matched by an equal increase in resources. While the state insists on opening the universities to an ever-growing student population, it is unwilling or unable to provide adequate funding to handle the growing teaching load. This is all the more serious because German institutions of higher education are almost entirely dependent on state funding. At the same time, German governments encourage efficiency and competition between universities because of fear that Germany − and Europe as a whole − will lose the race for a knowledge-based economy and society. A particular difficulty that political science departments face in the course of adopting the new degree structure is that of teaching capacity. At a good number of universities, the discipline is represented by only two or three (full) professors and a small number of assistants (young lecturers, who write their dissertation and teach part-time, and doctors, who are in the process of completing their “habilitation” or second book). Given the higher

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

167

student/teacher ratios in the new BA and MA studies, which means a heavier workload – at least formally, more hours of presence in class, more tutoring, and more exams − small departments cannot afford to build BA or MA courses in political science alone (with some modules imported or a minor in another subject). In order to survive the reform, they had to throw in their lot with other departments and come up with sometimes fanciful new courses whose labels indicate only a remote resemblance with political science. It would be exaggerated to call this the end of the discipline, but it should not be overlooked as a possible danger to its identity. Sometimes exotic combinations were not chosen because of capacity problems but rather reflect present uncertainty as to the goals of the new structures. This is particularly true for the requirement formulated by the KMK that the BA must contain sufficient job-related elements to help the graduates enter a professional career after three years. This focus on job tyranny is indeed the hardest thorn in the flesh of those who strongly believe in the traditional notion of universitas. What seems to result from this uncertainty is quite some variation in substance hidden behind the label of a “BA in Political Science” in Germany, especially in terms of the amount of disciplinary knowledge and methodology acquired. It must be born in mind, however, that such an academic title is not legally established under the new rules. Formally, there exists only one “BA”, and the information on the particular composition of subjects that a student took in the course of his studies can only be taken from the diploma supplement. It seems that the recommendation of the German Political Science Association (DVPW) on the basis of a largely informal agreement between Political Science Associations from various European countries (Reinalda/Kulesza 2005: 222-224) bore fruit: According to this document, a BA is regarded as a degree in political science only if at least half of the workload, i.e., 90 credit points, are spent on the various sub-disciplines of political science (Political Theory, Government, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Methods). As far as detailed data on the courses are already available, the bulk of political science departments has followed this route7. Nevertheless, it is not clear yet whether the disciplinary basis acquired with these BA degrees will be sufficient to enter the newly designed Master courses. It can easily be foreseen that – as in any major reform undertakings – a number of adaptations will become necessary in the nearer future as a consequence of the reaction and choices of the students. Another major problem facing German universities is that of a growing student population. As will be shown in the next section, this might affect political science departments more than others. It has been estimated recently that the number of students enrolled in institutions of tertiary education will 7

This will be elaborated further in the section on teaching below.

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

168

increase by almost 15 percent over the next six years. This is partly caused by demographic developments but also by an ever-rising demand for a highly qualified work force on the side of the economy. That is why the most renowned advisory council in the field of science policy in Germany, the Wissenschaftsrat, strongly urged politicians in January 2006 to immediately start creating more teaching capacities. This is in line with the often heard complaints that Germany is at the bottom of the list of OECD countries in terms of university graduates per age cohort. High above the average of 53 percent range Iceland with 83, New Zealand with 81 and Sweden with 80 percent; the last on the list is Turkey with 23 percent (all figures from 2003). The rate of students in the tertiary sector in Germany was 36 percent. This, after all, constitutes an increase of four percentage points in two years, which is certainly not enough in international comparison. However, one has to be careful in taking these statistics at face value. What is taught at universities and colleges in other countries is often part of the highly developed specialized vocational training in Germany. Nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that German higher education still discriminates disproportionally against children from lower classes. Thus, the warning by the Wissenschaftsrat is imperative, especially as the addressee is not one central bureaucracy but sixteen states carefully guarding their competences in this sector. As a consequence, coordination is costly and often dependent on the dire budgetary situation of the various German states. For quite a number of years this led to constant cuts in the state funding of universities and an almost complete lack of sensitivity to the financial implications of the BA/MA reform.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

In 2005, there existed 379 institutions of higher education in Germany, including 103 universities, 74 specialized schools, 172 polytechnics (Fachhochschulen) and 30 schools of administration. 69 or 18.2 percent of these institutions were private. In 1994, this number was just 24 (7.3 percent), thus showing a considerable increase over the past ten years. In spite of this remarkable development, it is still a comparatively small proportion of the student body which is enrolled in private institutions, namely 2.3 percent8.

8

Data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Statistics.

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

169

At the institutions shown in Table 1, political science is a well-represented subject. Chairs – with various denominations in sub-disciplines – exist at most of them, with the obvious exception of those schools whose subject areas lie elsewhere, such as Medical Schools, or in particular polytechnics, with their specialized strongly job-related programmes. The DVPW lists 70 out of the 103 universities as having departments or sub-units (for instance in Faculties of Economics and Social Sciences) which teach Political Science and organize the discipline. Table 1: Institutions of higher education in Germany (by states, winter term 2005/06) D BW BY BE BB HB HH HE MV NI NW RP SL SN ST SH TH Universities 103 15 12 8 3 2 5 7 2 11 15 6 1 7 2 3 4 Teacher Train6 6 ing Colleges Church Colleges 15 3 3 6 2 1 Art Colleges 53 8 8 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 8 2 7 2 2 1 Polytechnics 172 34 23 8 6 2 6 12 4 12 26 9 2 12 4 8 4 Schools of 30 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 Administration Total 379 67 47 21 13 6 15 28 8 26 59 20 6 28 10 14 11

Note: D = Germany, BW = Baden-Württemberg, BY = Bavaria, BE = Berlin, BB = Brandenburg, HB = Bremen, HH = Hamburg, HE = Hesse, MV = Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, NI = Lower Saxony, NW = Northrhine-Westfalia, RP = Rhineland-Palatinate, SL = Saarland, SN = Saxony, ST = Saxony-Anhaltine, SH = Schleswig-Holstein, TH = Thuringia. Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005).

In 2004, 347 professors (tenure positions) taught political science in Germany, 126 lecturers in various positions (tenure, tenure track and nontenure), usually holding doctor titles. Many of them are on the road to their “habilitation”, which still remains the major requirement to qualify for a full professorship (only one out of ten in this group was a “junior professor”, a recently introduced alternative route to full professorship, similar to the American model). 626 further young university teachers with contracts for two to six years − most of them working on their dissertations − can be added to the political science faculty at German universities9. Their number has increased considerably since the early 1990s (from 427 in 1992 to 626 in 2004). On the one hand, this can be regarded as a positive development in raising a new generation of political scientists. On the other hand, it must be seen in light of the fact that the growth rate of the higher tiers of university staff is much less impressive: among professors, it was 12 percent in the same period of time (309 in 1992, 347 in 2004), and – particularly alarming – 9

According to the Federal Bureau of Statistics, only heads were counted. Thus, it might be that behind this figure are considerable differences over the years as to the status of employment, e.g., part-time contracts or project co-workers.

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

170

the number of doctors fluctuated around 130 with no increase at all (132 in 1992, 126 in 2004). These positions were the particular victims of budget cuts since the 1980s. While in former years, practically every chair was equipped with one so-called C1 position, i.e., a doctor writing the habilitation, this is down to one out of three. All this means that moving up the university career ladder is like moving through the proverbial bottleneck. Table 2: Faculty in Departments of Political Science in Germany, 1992-2004 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Professors 309 308 325 316 322 303 284 318 289 301 305 342 347

Lecturers (with doctoral degree) 132 120 106 134 130 126 129 138 120 125 131 122 126

Lecturers (without doctoral degree) 427 430 487 487 496 453 434 510 497 513 553 561 626

Adjunct teachers 970 929 1,083 1,005 1,018 718 713 650 585 687 661 764 866

Total 1,838 1,787 2,001 1,942 1,966 1,600 1,560 1,616 1,491 1,626 1,650 1,789 1,965

Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005).

However, contrary to general fears that political science would suffer considerably from the downgrading of many subjects at German universities, this did not happen at a large scale. Indeed, only two departments were closed down altogether: The states of Saarland and Berlin decided to end the teaching of political science at the University of Saarbrücken and the Technical University Berlin. Recently, plans have surfaced to abolish political science at the historically prestigious University of Göttingen, but much opposition – also mobilized through the media – may prevent this from coming true. What did happen, however, was the reduction of chairs in a number of departments. The Otto-Suhr-Institut (OSI) of the Free University of Berlin – in former decades by far the largest political science department in West Germany with over 30 professors – faced major losses. Because the university landscape in united Germany features five universities in and around Berlin and the Länder suffer from public poverty, profile-building had to take place and led – under the motto of synergy effects – to mergers of subjects and the abolition of chairs. According to a DVPW survey, 12 chairs only will remain at the OSI. However, together with the Faculty of Politics and Administration at the University of Konstanz this is still the highest number of full professors of political science in Germany. The average size of a department in terms of its professorial staff is four, and their denomination usually follows

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

171

the traditional sub-division into Political Theory, Government, Comparative Politics and International Relations. Many departments of political science owe their survival, at times when economic utilization of university education is all that counts, to the fact that they train teachers. “Sozialkunde”, probably best translated with civics, is a subject taught in schools at every level and in many German states teachers are much in demand. With the exception of Baden-Württemberg which still operates six specialized teacher training schools, pedagogy and didactics are taught at universities and there are only a handful of departments where the teaching of politics for school teachers is not an important part of the workload. Indeed, in terms of students enrolled, this is often an assignment so large that it has helped the discipline at many universities to become virtually indispensable.

2.2

Students, Degree Systems, Admission Regulations and Examinations

In the 1980s, we saw an already steep rise in the number of political science students. It tripled between 1980 and 1992 (cf. Klingemann 1996: 87-102), the last year for which statistics (for West Germany alone) are available. Thus, it seems that the moderate increase of 10 percent in the following year can be ascribed to the inclusion of universities in the East German Länder where departments of political science were entirely new institutions after the teaching of Marxism-Leninism in the GDR. Subsequently, the figures grew slowly with a slight drop in 1999. More substantial growth rates occurred again between 2001 and 2003. Today, slightly more than 29,000 students study political science at German universities and polytechnics of whom 40 percent are females. In addition, almost 3,000 students, who want to become school teachers, are enrolled in civics courses (Sozialkunde, Gemeinschaftskunde). To interpret the figures correctly one has to know that these statistics do not distinguish between the various degrees which are awarded in political science. These range from political science as a minor or subsidiary subject in combination with, for instance, other subjects of the social sciences, such as economics or liberal arts, to civics teacher, and the “Magister” (where political science subjects cover at least one half of the five-year course) to the “Diplom” (likewise a five-year course with political science at the core and small elements of other subjects included). Moreover, since the Bologna Process started, the number of students enrolled in Bachelor and Master courses is constantly rising. Taking all students at German universities and polytechnics together, in 2004, 6.1 percent were enrolled in a BA, 1.8 percent in a MA course. Looking only at the beginners, 12.4 percent had chosen

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

172

a BA, 1.6 percent an MA degree. The corresponding figures for political science first years are as follows: of 4.681 political science freshmen in 2004 20.3 percent had enrolled in a BA, 1.5 percent in an MA course. Table 2: Students of political science in Germany, 1992-2004 (without teacher training) Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total number 20,249 21,857 22,308 22,350 22,762 24,102 24,829 23,977 24,420 25,853 28,266 30,247 28,766 29,080

Male 12,571 13,691 13,993 14,015 14,292 14,947 15,281 14,757 14,958 15,678 16,976 18,245 17,277 17,534

% 62 63 63 63 63 62 61 62 61 60 60 60 60 60

Female 7,678 8,166 8,315 8,335 8,470 9,155 9,548 9,220 9,462 10,175 11,290 12,002 11,489 11,546

% 38 37 37 37 37 38 39 38 39 40 40 40 40 40

Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (2006).

Figure 1:

First-year students at German universities and polytechnics, 2004

Diploma and corresponding degrees

176.604

Polytechnics degrees

97.322

Bachelor Master

44.397 5.871

Other degrees

34.510

Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (2006).

It can be expected that in the next couple of years “Diplom” and “Magister” degrees in political science will gradually disappear. Most departments have decided to end enrolment for the old degrees simultaneously with introducing the new BA and MA courses. Thus, the old and the new degrees will co-exist for probably five to six years, with the former fading out. Appendix 1 displays the state of affairs as to the availability of degrees in 2005. However, the picture is constantly changing with more and more universities adapting to the Bologna Process.

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

173

A difficult matter is the integration of teacher training into the BA/MA structure. Much is still in flux here. Particularly salient is the question whether the scientific disciplinary contents should be taught during the Bachelor phase and a Master of Education should then provide the necessary knowledge and skills in pedagogy and didactics. The alternative would be a combination of both, thus providing students with teachers training right from the start in order to enable them to find out more easily whether they are suited for that profession. Hitherto, German universities left their doctoral students a great deal of freedom. For better or worse, they were just supervised by their “Doktorvater” (or “Doktormutter”). Special courses did not exist; the most that was asked of doctoral candidates was to participate in colloquiums where they presented their research projects for a Diploma or a Magister thesis. It was a very individualistic form of study leading to a doctorate either in philosophy (Dr. phil.), in political affairs, res politicae (Dr. rer. pol.), or in social sciences (Dr. rer. soc.). Already before the Bologna reform process, attempts were made to give doctoral studies a firmer structure (Graduiertenkollegs). As the introduction of such programmes was costly and as a consequence often entailed lengthy application procedures, not many departments applied for Graduiertenkollegs. In recent years, however, we have observed more efforts to establish specialized doctoral studies. Competition between universities, also for students from foreign countries, has triggered this development which, however, is still in its infancy. Different from many other countries, university education in Germany was free of charge. No tuition fees were levied, only rather token sums had to be paid for the bureaucratic act of the enrolment, for health insurance, and for so-called semester tickets which included services such as the use of public transportation. The constant under-financing of universities by the Länder and the fear of losing in the European or global competition for the best students, led to a fierce debate in recent years whether to introduce tuition fees. It goes without saying that most students and their representatives are against such measures. Also the former federal government, a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, and its minister of science and education spoke against fees as they were regarded as socially discriminatory. The Bundesverfassungsgericht (the Supreme Constitutional Court), however, ruled that the federal government had no authority to prevent the Länder from levying such student fees. As a consequence, more and more of them are deciding to introduce fees. Given the fact that almost all universities in Germany are state-owned, it is not astonishing that there were no individual admission policies. The KMK used to agree on a statute that guided the enrolment capacities and was valid in all 16 states. On that basis, the ministries calculated maximum student numbers for those subjects where the demand exceeded the staff and other

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

174

resources of the respective departments. This was the so-called local numerus clausus. There was no absolute cut made in terms of highschool average grades. Applicants were admitted up to the fixed number according to these grades. For political science degrees – in many states subject to such a numerus clausus as they are much demanded – this often meant that only students got in who had excellent or very good school grades. Meanwhile, a growing number of states amended their legislation and now give universities a choice as to how they want to regulate admission. The practice currently emerging is that universities either continue going by school grades (sometimes requiring especially good results in certain subjects), or that they conduct personal interviews or administer tests. Given the tight staff capacities in virtually all political science departments, it is not very likely that many will adopt this latter procedure of admission unless the university will provide at least extra administrative help for such admission services. The extent to which degree structures are in flux is not yet mirrored in the statistics of successful examinations in political science. Table 4: Successful examinations in political science in Germany, 1993-2004 Year

Total

Diploma and Magister

Doctorates

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

1,346 1,431 1,506 1,775 2,069 1,844 1,928 1,723 1,681 1,764 2,185 2,131

1,159 1,224 1,292 1,404 1,513 1,427 1,515 1,336 1,308 1,463 1,895 1,832

152 181 188 192 215 194 252 262 268 207 217 185

Civics (teacher training) 35 26 26 179 341 223 161 122 97 85 60 73

Bachelor

Master

2 4 7 4 3

1 4 2 9 38

Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005).

In the last two years the recorded number of successfully passed exams in the discipline exceeded 2,000, an amount that had been reached only once before (in 1997). Given that there are almost 3,000 political science students in teacher training courses, the number of exams in this category is quite small. It can be expected that it will peak in coming years as it was the case before. Astonishing trends could be observed in this field over the last decades which might be explained by unsafe predictions of demand and sometimes erratic practices of state governments in the employment of teachers. That there are so few successful BA and MA students to be found in Table 4 does

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

175

not astonish. It is only now that most universities start with the new programmes so that large numbers of graduates cannot be expected yet.

2.3

Areas of Teaching

Concerning the political science curriculum it is difficult to measure the changes that accompany the Bologna Process. Whereas especially the curriculum for the diploma in political science was rather formalized and did not differ a great deal from institution to institution10 the variety of BA curricula containing politics is enormous, as already mentioned above. Political science has entered into many combinations, where the specific share of the discipline usually reflects the specialization of the current chair holder(s). Those departments, which offer a genuine BA in political science (with 90 credit points or more), all include modules of the classical type, i.e., Political Theory and Political Thought or Philosophy, (German) Government, Comparative Politics, International Relations, also Political Economy and Political Sociology, and Policy Researc, or they mix these subject areas in newly designed topical lecture-and-seminar programmes in a modularized system. A systematic survey of the new curricula is not possible yet as the state of planning or implementation is too diverse. However, impressionistic evidence shows that not much deviation seems to occur from the recommendations issued by the DVPW in May 2003. The core curriculum publicized reads as follows:

Core Areas of Teaching Political Science 1. Political Theory − Basic categories of political science − Classical writers in political theory − Modern political theory 2. Methods − Epistemology − Qualitative and quantitative methods (including statistics) − Comparative methods 3. Domestic Policy and the Political System of Germany − Institutions − Political behaviour, participation and representation − Policy research − Politics in multi-level systems/Germany and the European Union 10 For more detailed descriptions of the nature of these old degrees, see Klingemann (1996: 89).

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

176

4. Political Systems in Comparison − Institutions − Political processes − Policy research − European domestic policy 5. Foreign Policy and International Relations − Key concepts and theories of international relations − Foreign policy − Institutions and processes in international politics − Security, defence, peace and conflict research Attempts to reach this degree of detail in a political science curriculum at the European level (and especially the efforts to make it binding) have not been met with much success yet. A systematic gathering of data on curricula should be started soon to establish more precise information on the state of affairs and enable the continuation of the development of a European core curriculum for the discipline. Indeed, the recently founded European Political Science Network (epsNet) is trying to pursue this goal. Currently, it can be added that, in Germany, those departments which traditionally offer(ed) diploma degrees – an indicator for an understanding of the discipline as a “science” rather than an “art” – had integrated in their curricula more or less comprehensive classes on Methodology and Statistics. A cursory inspection of the material available on the existing and planned new BA courses reveals that this tradition is continuing. Indeed, it would be worthwhile to study this more systematically when all or most departments have changed to the new course system. It seems that the requirement to build in job-related elements has led to a stronger emphasis on the teaching of methods and statistics. At least in principle, this would be in accordance with the recommendations given by the DVPW Working Group “Empirical Methods in Political Science”11. This group, for instance, suggested reserving 15 credit points for the teaching of methods and statistics courses and another five for practical research work in political science.

2.4

Research

It is the declared goal of German universities to regard teaching and research as two inseparable sides of the same coin. In practice, however, research and teaching in social sciences (as well as in most other disciplines) are usually 11 The Working Group drafted three curricula for the teaching of methods in political science courses, for details see www.dvpw.de/dummy/fileadmin/docs/methoden2.doc.

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

177

not contiguous actions but different tasks which the faculty has to meet at different times and often on different topics. It has become increasingly difficult to obtain funds for individual research as the number of competitors has grown and the increase rates of the available budgets have not gone up. Although a certain diversification in the financing of research in social sciences has taken place, it is still largely the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG), which receives its money from the federal government and the German states, and the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk, where university research projects in political science may seek funding. Apart from individual activities which virtually all faculty members pursue, and in addition to research institutes that larger departments have created, a major contribution to university research is made by so-called Sonderforschungsbereiche (SFB). These are units of interdisciplinary long-ranging research programmes in which scientists from one or more universities cooperate in intergrated projects. They are also financed by the DFG. Currently, political scientists are prominently involved in the following SFBs: Social Developments after Structural Change; Discontinuity, Tradition, Structural Formation (Jena/Halle); Institutionality and Historicity (Dresden); and Transformations of the State (Bremen)12. An impression of the research landscape of political science at German universities can be gained from the following synopsis generated on the basis of a survey that the DVPW conducted among departments of political science in 200413. In addition to university research, which is often organized in so-called “An-Instituten”, i.e., organisational units that are not an integral part of the university structure but work under its umbrella, there are a number of independent research institutes. The larger ones are the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), where some departments conduct primarily political science projects; the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik also Berlin based; and the Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung in Cologne. Others deal with foreign policy and security issues, for instance the Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung in Frankfurt am Main and the Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik in Berlin. It seems that making Berlin the German capital has not only led to a centralization of research institutes in this city but also sparked off the foundation of smaller private organizations that have started to create circles of discourse on specialized issues of politics.

12 For further information see the following synopsis and www.dfg.de. 13 As not all replied or gave relevant information it is not comprehensive. The information about the two universities in Berlin is based on internet research.

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

178

Synopsis: research profiles at political science departments in Germany, 2004 University Aachen

Research profile

Comparative government (Western Europe and North America); democracy and state theory; political decision-making by way of transnational co-operation in Europe; dealing with national socialism in German society and politics; security and conflict research Bamberg Election and public opinion research; political elites; European integration; rational choice theory; Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) “The opening and closing of markets”; Bamberg Centre for European Studies Free University of Bases and foundations of politics; home and domestic policy and comparison Berlin of systems; international politics and regional studies; economic analysis of political systems and policy field analysis; right-wing extremism; unions Humboldt Universi- Comparative democracy research; comparative analysis of culture and institutity at Berlin tions; work, family and social policy; social inequalities; urbanisation and integration policy Bielefeld World society; global governance; political communication; social policy; sociological theory Bonn European party systems; European integration; problems of modern democracy; comparative government Braunschweig Peace and conflict research; North-South questions; international political economy; governance; policy research (industry, technology, regions); Project Alliance Lower Saxony on peace and conflict research Hochschule Research Centre on Migration, Citizenship and Development (COMCAD); Bremen dual citizenship in Europe, democracy and migration control (part of the SFB 597: “Transformation of the state”) International Uni- Two projects in the SFB 597: “Transformation of the state”. versity of Bremen University of SFB: “Transformation of the state”;Centre for Social Policy; Bremen Institute for Intercultural and International Studies (INIIS); Jean Monnet Centre for European Studies Chemnitz Extremism and totalitarianism; comparative democracy and dictatorship; science and politics in the GDR; opposition in the GDR; German-German relations; emigration and remigration of academics after 1945; foreign policy in France, Great Britain and Germany; German staff policy in international organisations Darmstadt Effective and legitimate governing in multi-level systems Dresden SFB 537: “Institutionality and historicity”; comparative government; parliamentarism; constitutional and democratic theory; history of political thought and political culture in the USA; liberalism; transatlantic relations; European integration Duisburg–Essen Rhine-Ruhr Institute for Social Research and Political Consulting (RISP); (Duisburg) Institute for Development and Peace Research (INEF) Düsseldorf Research Units: North Rhine-Westphalia in Europe; party research; corruption; European security policy; political Systems in Eastern Europe Eichstätt (Catholic State/Church relations in European comparison; democratic theory; Supreme University) Courts

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

179

Synopsis (cont’d) University

Research profile

Gießen

Empirical social research; gender studies; policy research (media, economic and social policies); Eastern Europe; projects in the SFB 434: “Erinnerungskulturen (memory cultures)” Centre for European and North American Studies; Institute for Regionalism; party research; Islamic studies SFB 580: „Social developments after structural change. Discontinuity, tradition structural formation”; parliamentarism; utopianism in modern times; teacher training research (civics) Policy research (public policy, social policy); political analysis of social structure; European studies; gender studies; dealing with national socialism in German society and politics Elections in international comparison; the European Union; role and functions of the state in comparison SFB 580: „Social developments after structural change. Discontinuity, tradition structural formation”; political culture in Thuringia Institute for Security Policy; European policy; US foreign policy; transformation of post-socialist states; parliamentarism Political communication; political sociology; European politics; transformation; development studies (Africa) Project in the SFB 417: “Change of regional perceptions”; history of political science in Leipzig; state theory; culture and justice; international norms; Indo-German cross cultural project Centre for Democracy; parliamentarism; environmental policy Human rights; European studies; federalism; party research; peace and conflict research; United Nations Election and party research; political attitudes and behaviour in comparison; right wing extremism; development of Western democracies and consolidation of democracies in Central and Eastern Europe; local and regional politics; German-American relations; European security policy; migration; epistemology and methodology Mannheimer Zentrum für europäische Sozialforschung (MZES): The Mannheim Centre for European Research, the largest university-based social science research institute in Germany, has currently a staff of 40 researchers. Its research programme includes European integration; theories of international relations; security policy; North-south relations; international environmental policy; effective and democratic governing in the European multi-level system; Europeanization of national political systems; democratic institutions; legislation; coalitions; nation state building in post-communist Europe; political behaviour and participation; empirical democratic theories; comparative social research; trade unions. Two major projects are the Network of Excellence (CONNEX) on “Efficient and Democratic Governance in a Multi-Level Europe”, and the SFB 504: “Concepts of rationality, behaviour in decision-making and economic modelling” (electoral systems and coalition options as incentives for strategic voting)

Göttingen Halle–Wittenberg (Halle) Hannover

Heidelberg Jena Kiel Koblenz–Landau (Landau) Leipzig

Lüneburg Magdeburg Mainz

Mannheim

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

180

Synopsis (cont’d) University

Research profile

Marburg

Transformation of democracies; European Union; political participation and direct democracy; gender studies; criminal justice in Nazi-Germany and war criminal trials Two projects in the SFB 536: “Reflexive modernization” (globalisation and the nation state, effects of globalisation on national policy-making); dynamics and obstacles of European governance; lobbyism Centre for Applied Political Science (CAP); Eric Voegelin Archive; European politics; Third world; philosophy and ethics; political ecology Hannah Arendt Center; Research Unit Carl von Ossietzky/Kurt Tucholsky/Gotthold Ephraim Lessing; Research Unit Social Sustainability (IFSN); European integration and political education; German emigrants to the USA; empirical democracy research; migration and intercultural relations; film and politics in the GDR; teacher training research European studies; comparative political systems Parties; interest groups; parliamentarism; European integration; constitutional courts; comparative political systems; politics and internet Public policy; service sector management; democracy; civil society; policy analysis; political institutions Transatlantic relations; modern republicanism; domestic and economic policy in the USA; transformation of post-socialist states; civil society in Central and Eastern Europe; contractualism; parliamentarism; interest groups Pluralism; collective identities; political symbolism; value change; transformation of religious beliefs; Mecklenburg-Pomerania as an European region; consociational democracies; economic expansion and political integration; LatinAmerican politics; globalisation and US-security policy Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Social Services; Centre for European Regional Research; media planning and development Research Centre for Public Administration; European integration; effects on national legislation; constitution building in the EU Empirical social research and political sociology; elections and political attitudes; local politics; democratic theory; methodology Globalisation and the nation state; globalisation and civil society; German and Japanese foreign policy; informal politics in comparison; European politics in France; European constitution; Chinese political system; new democratic theory Comparative politics (Middle East, Latin America, Europe); international relations European integration; political theory European politics; governance; political theory; didactics of politics European integration; European politics in cross-national comparison; French politics; environmental policy; federalism and decentralisation; transatlantic relations

Technical University, Munich LM University of Munich Oldenburg

Osnabrück Passau Potsdam Regensburg

Rostock

Siegen

Speyer

Stuttgart Trier

Tübingen Vechta Wuppertal Würzburg

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

2.5

181

Professional Communication

Journals The major periodicals in the discipline are a journal issued by the German Political Science Association, called Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS), and the Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen (ZParl). The former provides a forum for authors of all sub-disciplines of political science to publish their research results whereas the ZParl offers this opportunity in the field of parliamentary affairs in the broadest sense. It deals with parliaments and all their aspects in Germany as well as in other countries and, comparatively, with parties and elections, governance, federalism, representation and related issues, comprising articles mainly from the fields of (comparative) government, (constitutional) law and political sociology. Both the PVS and the ZParl are refereed journals, both publish approximately 800 pages in four issues per year. With just under 2,000, the ZParl has the largest circulation, followed by the PVS with 1,500. Smaller is the circulation of the Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ZPol) which − aside from research articles – offers the invaluable service of a bibliography of an average of 2,000 monographies per year from all sub-fields of the discipline. Several other journals serve the needs of specialization, e.g., the Zeitschrift für Politik (ZfP) with articles primarily on political thought and theory, or the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) focussing on international relations and foreign policy.

Associations Less than two years after the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, the German Political Science Association (DVPW), was launched. Starting in 1951 with about 40 members, it grew fast with the development of the discipline. Thirty years later, the DVPW counted a little less than 900 political scientists, mostly from universities. In 1983, a split occurred in the membership triggered by the resignation of the then president. A conglomerate of motives seems to have led to this development (cf. Hartwich 2003: 35-45), which eventually resulted in the founding of a second association, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Politikwissenschaft (DGfP). After years of fairly bitter antagonism, the schism has been bridged and relations are friendly. However, it is not overcome in terms of organisational independence. Today, many political scientists hold dual memberships; the annual convention of the DGfP is attended by an official representative of the DVPW, usually the president, and vice versa. When common action is required, for instance when peer reviewers of the discipline must be nominated to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, both associations act in concert. Thus, today it seems more like a quaint tra-

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

182

dition than a necessity caused by unsurmountable differences that there exist two organizations of political science in the country. Over the last 20 years, the DVPW has attracted a growing number of political scientists. In 2005, membership exceeded 1,500 for the first time. The DGfP counts roughly one-seventh of this number. The smaller association holds an annual conference. The DVPW meets every three years in a big convention which lasts one week. Aside from lectures, plenaries, and panels, the DVPW sections and working groups convene meetings. Figure 2:

Members in the German Political Science Association (DVPW), 1991-2005

1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 1991

1993

Nov 95

Okt 97

Okt 99

Sep 01

Sep 03

Dez 05

Source: Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, Secretariat (2006).

German political scientists are also very active in international organizations of the discipline. Ten years ago, Klingemann counted 21 departments that were members of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), the largest European-wide association of political science. By January 2006, this number had grown to 32. Between 2003 and 2006, the ECPR was chaired by a German. This is currently also true for the International Political Science Association (IPSA). With the Bologna Process, more emphasis is given on the teaching of the discipline. This certainly fostered the efforts to launch epsNet, an association based on individual membership concentrating on issues concerning the quality of political science teaching and its comparability in Europe. Its first president was also a German. It waits to be seen how these organizations with their different foci and structures will co-exist in the future. There seems to be good reason to strive for a European Political

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

183

Science Association which could provide a forum for all aspects of the discipline and would be able to offer (affordable) individual membership for political scientists of all European countries. This would certainly strengthen the representation of political science in the European area of higher education and research.

3 The Future of Political Science in Germany In earlier years, the job prospects of political scientists were much better than conventional wisdom would have it. Although we do not have comprehensive data, studies for individual universities indicate that about three-quarters of the graduates in political science find a job adequate to their academic training within a year’s time. The rate of unemployment of political scientists is lower than for students of law or business administration. Given this and the invariably high number of students enrolling, the discipline is quite well positioned in the German university landscape. Whether this positive development will continue cannot be foreseen yet. Much will depend on how the new degrees of Bachelor and Master will perform in the job market. It seems, however, that what has often been regarded as a major disadvantage of a political science degree – namely the absence of a clear professional profile – has turned into an advantage: the graduates are usually trained as “generalists”. Thus, they are flexible and innovative when it comes to looking for employment and they are equipped with procedural knowledge and skills of communication and information. If this strategy can be continued, improved and systematized through the Bologna Process, and if, in addition, the diversity and quality of research in the discipline can be maintained in spite of the dire financial situation of German universities, the future of political science does not look grim at all.

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

184

Appendix: Political Science at Institutions of Higher Education, 2005 University (or indicated)

Aachen Augsburg Bamberg Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Univ. Berlin, Technische Univ. Berlin, FHVRP (polytechnics) Bielefeld Bochum Bonn Braunschweig Bremen Hochschule (polytechnics) Bremen, IUB Bremen, University Chemnitz Darmstadt Dresden Duisburg-Essen, Campus Duisburg Düsseldorf Eichstätt-Ingolstadt Erfurt Erlangen Esslingen, FH (polytech) Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt (Oder) Freiburg Gießen Göttingen Greifswald Hagen Halle-Wittenberg Hamburg, Universität Hamburg, Bundeswehruniv. Hannover Heidelberg Jena Kassel Kiel Koblenz-Landau Köln Konstanz Leipzig Lüneburg

Diploma

x x x

Magister

x* x* (x)

Civics (teacher training) x x x x

(x)* (x)

x

(x) x* x

x x x x

BA

x x x x

x x

x

x*

x x x* x* (x) (x) x

x x x

x*

x*

x x x

x

x

x

x x x* x x* x* x (x) x* x* x

x x x*

x*

x* x x

x*** x3* x*

x x x x* x*

x x x* x x x x x x x x* x

MA

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x1 x

x x

x x

x x x x

x x

x

x x x2 x

x x x

x x x

The Current State of Political Science in Germany

185

Appendix (cont’d) University (or indicated)

Magdeburg Mainz Mannheim Marburg München, Kath. St. FH München, Universität Münster Oldenburg Osnabrück Paderborn Passau Potsdam Regensburg Rostock Siegen Speyer Verwaltungshochschule Stuttgart Trier Tübingen Vechta Wuppertal Würzburg Teacher training colleges Freiburg Heidelberg Karlsruhe Ludwigsburg Schwäbisch-Gmünd Weingarten

Diploma

Magister

x x

x x x* x*

Civics (teacher training) x x x x

x x x* x

x x x x

x

x

x x x x* x4 x* x x x (x) x*

x x x x x x x x x x

BA

MA

x

x

x x

x** x x x x

x x x x x x x x***

x x x x x x***

x x x*** x

x x***

x x x x x x

Notes: (m) = minor subject only; * = ends in near future; no further registration possible; ** = will be offered soon; *** = focus on Social Studies. 1 = only Cultural Studies; 2 = only for foreign students; 3 = diploma degree Public Administration; 4 = Advanced Studies in Public Administration. Source: Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, Secretariat and own internet research.

186

Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer

References Bleek, Wilhelm (2001): Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland, München: Beck. Bleek, Wilhelm / Hans Lietzmann (eds.) (1996): Politikwissenschaft. Geschichte und Entwicklung, München: Oldenbourg. Bleek, Wilhelm / Hans Lietzmann (eds.) (1999): Schulen der deutschen Politikwissenschaft, Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Bracher, Karl Dietrich (1965): „Wissenschafts- und zeitgeschichtliche Probleme der politischen Wissenschaft in Deutschland“, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 17: 447-464. Hartmann, Jürgen (2003): Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft, Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Hartwich, Hans-Hermann (2003): „Die DVPW in Jahren der Krise und der Erneuerung 1983 bis 1988“, in: Jürgen W. Falter / Felix W. Wurm (eds.): Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 50 Jahre DVPW, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 35-45. Hennis, Wilhelm (1963): Politik und praktische Philosophie. Eine Studie zur Rekonstruktion der politischen Wissenschaft, Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (1996): “Political Science in Germany”, in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): Political Science in Europe: Education, Co-operation, Prospects. Report on the State of the Discipline in Europe, Paris: Sciences Po: 87102. Maier, Hans (1957): „Politikwissenschaft“, in: Ernst Fraenkel / Karl-Dieter Bracher (eds.): Fischer-Lexikon Staat und Politik, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Bücherei: 260270. Mohr, Arno (1995): „Politikwissenschaft als Universitätsdisziplin in Deutschland“, in: Arno Mohr (ed.): Grundzüge der Politikwissenschaft, München/Wien: Oldenbourg: 1-63. Müller, Rainer A. (1990): Geschichte der Universität. Von der mittelalterlichen Universität zur deutschen Hochschule, München: Nikol Verlag. Nickel, Erich (2004): Politik und Politikwissenschaft in der Weimarer Republik, Berlin: Rotschild. Reinalda, Bob / Ewa Kulesza (2005): The Bologna Process – Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education. Including the Essential Original Texts, Opladen/Bloomfield Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Rüdiger, Axel (2005): Die Staatswissenschaft an der Universität Halle im 18. Jahrhundert, Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Political Science in Greece George Contogeorgis

1 Introduction The recent emergence of political science in the modern world confirms that the scientific approach to the political phenomenon depends directly on the place that the political praxis occupies in time and in the context of society. In European societies, the transformation of the political phenomenon from a private (feudal society) to a public affair was not in itself sufficient to promote the process of development of political science. Politics continued to be identified with the concept of the state power, which embodied the political system. The social body is restricted to a role of simple legitimization of the political personnel. To reach the point where the political phenomenon begins slowly to be treated as the subject of a distinct science that refers to it, it was necessary to break with the traditional framework of the public space through the substantial broadening of the sphere of politics in the direction of society. Society did not cease to be seen as a private space with no direct representative relevance in politics. The broadening of the political sphere of politics may be attributed on the one hand to the profound change that the communication system1 underwent at the end of the 20th century, which resulted in the creation of the conditions for a more active participation of the social body in the political process, and on the other hand, to the relevant social emancipation of the individual. In this respect, the case of Greece is an exemplary laboratory, due to its uniqueness, since it refers to a society with a profound political development that corresponds to the era of (direct) democracy and the ecumenical constitution of the anthropocentric cosmosystem. This was precisely the political reality of Hellenic society during the pre-ethnocentric age, that is, until the 19th century.

1

The communication system is defined by the sum of the parameters that produce and express the field of politics. The field of politics actually delimits the space of political dynamics and of the political process.

188

Georges Contogeorgis

2 The Historical Foundations of Political Science 2.1

From the Ecumenical Cosmosystem to the Ethnocentric Cosmosystem2

Perhaps it has not been sufficiently noticed that political thought and probably political science is a product not generally of human societies but of the anthropocentric society. Political ideas are indeed found in despotic societies too, particularly in the stage when they are being constituted in the form of state despotism; not, however, political thought, philosophy or political science. At the same time, within the anthropocentric cosmosystem, political thought evolves concurrently with the changes of its societies. In the proto-

2

At this point, several clarifications are considered necessary for the comprehension of the rest of the text. The concept of “cosmosystem” defines a large number of societies with common constitutional foundations and determinants (e.g., the parameters of the economy or the communication system) which constitute a spherical and self-contained unity, the system of a complete world. A cosmosystem is either despotic, when it constitutes societies of subjects (as in feudalism), or anthropocentric, when its societies are constituted in terms of freedom. We distinguish two great periods of the anthropocentric cosmosystem: the Hellenic, which is identified with the small-scale anthropocentric cosmosystem, and the modern, or ethnocentric, which coincides with the large-scale anthropocentric cosmosystem. The Hellenic cosmosystem is developed in two phases: the statocentric and the post-statocentric, or ecumenical, phases. The statocentric phase is based on the city-state, whereas the whole cosmosystem is perceived as the sum of the city-states. In this phase, the anthropocentric development (the freedoms, etc.) evolves basically within the state. The ecumenical phase maintains its acquisitions from the statocentric period (the cities, the social and political systems, the freedoms, etc.) but a superior city-state is created, the cosmopolis, which unifies politically the cosmosystemic area and reconstructs it in a regulatory context. The Hellenic, or anthropocentric, small-scale cosmosystem would last until the 19th century and constituted the starting point for the transition to the modern anthropocentric cosmosystem, which was based on the nation-state. However, we observe that the ethnocentric cosmosystem is traversing only the primary phase of the anthropocentric construction of the whole world and as such, it bases its socioeconomic system on individual freedom. On the other hand, the Hellenic cosmosystem represents more stages which cumulatively cover the sum of freedoms – individual, social and political – within the city-state but also, beyond this, on the level of the ecumenical cosmopolis. In this sense, we consider that the Hellenic paradigm could be a unique laboratory for the elaboration of the concepts of the social sciences and for the reconsideration of our approaches to modernity (see Contogeorgis 2003c; 2003b: 159-190, 197-215; 2001: 107-127).

Political Science in Greece

189

genetic stage of anthropocentric societies, political thinking, itself the subject of political science, focuses on the actions of the state, which exclusively embodies the political system and politics. In the integrated anthropocentric phase, society absorbs the political process and is transformed into the political system. The state deprived of the political system is transformed into a simple servant of the politically constituted society. Political thought and the science of politics were born in the Hellenic world precisely because it was here that anthropocentric societies appeared for the first time. By the Cretomycenean period the Hellenic societies had already established an anthropocentric cosmosystem that was based on the “chrematistic” economy3 and the politeia of the city. To the degree to which the Hellenic societies have not known, since that time, the feudal (cosmo-)system, the political phenomenon constitutes their dominant characteristic throughout history until their entrance into the modern ethnocentric era. Hellenic political thought in this context presents an extraordinary differentiation that is consistent with the typological spectrum of development of the Hellenic cosmosystem. In the early age, politics as a concept is initially defined as a “force” or as a “power” in which the simple (political) right (e.g., during the pre-democratic period) flourishes, either as (social or collective) autonomy, in which the individual goes through the stage of political, or more correctly, of universal (individual, social and political) freedom. Politics as a field of exercising universal freedom made its appearance after the establishment of the political society4 and of the democratic system in the context of the city. 3

4

The concept of chrematistic economy defines the economic environment whose nature is determined by the “chrema” (currency), with the meaning of accumulated value in the form of capital. Compared with the “market economy” – of which it constitutes a morphological expression – the meaning of “chrematistic economy” includes the whole economic process, from production to consumption. From this point of view, it is obviously broader and more effective as a typological categorization of the economic phenomenon. It is also capable of formulating hypotheses for the approach to the relationships of the economy with the social and the political area. Far from adopting the related approach of Antonio Gramsci – and before him that of Hegel – who identifies the “political society” with the state, we believe that the meaning of “political society” pertains to the type of society that introduces the whole (and not simply the individual) freedom as a component of the human being. The “civil society” essentially promotes the individual freedom and a body of social and political rights. In this case, the social and political freedom is entirely absent. So the “political society” includes the “civil society,” enriched with social and political freedom. Thus, the entrance into the “political society” – which constitutes a later phase compared to the “civil society” – pre-

190

Georges Contogeorgis

The merit of Hellenic political thought consists additionally in that the political vehicle of the Hellenic cosmosystem, that is, the city, as well as the so-called direct democracy which it served, go far beyond the classical period and its slave system. They would constitute the fundamental constants of its societies during its ecumenical phase, until the 19th century. The intellectual approach to the political phenomenon was to accompany the political praxis within the Hellenic cosmosystem, even in the “dark” periods: at the beginning of Roman despotism (2nd century B.C. − 1st century A.D.), during the period of consolidation of Christianity in Byzantium (7th-8th centuries) and particularly at the beginning of the period of Ottoman despotism (15th-17th centuries). For finally, because the anthropocentric foundations of the Hellenic cosmosystem (especially the “chrematistic” economy and the autonomous city) remained untouched, the despotic logic of central power or the reorientation of intellectual interest (during the period of the development of Christian doctrine) basically influenced the originality of political thought, but not the political praxis or the philosophical concern with politics. The great turning point for the re-launching of Hellenic humanism was the victory of iconolatry in Byzantium (8th-9th centuries)5. Political philosophy, and more generally the approach to the political phenomenon, reappeared dynamically in the proscenium and became a privileged field of intellectual interest. This would give a boost to the content of the studies at the public University6 of Constantinople, as well as to the Schools or to the intel-

5

6

supposes on the social level the rejection and mostly the scorning of labour or the corporate constitution of the relationship between labour and capital; at the political level, it presages the decline of the state power and the embodiment of the political process by the social body. This period must be regarded as the beginning of the process that ended in a new launching of Greek humanism and then the European Renaissance. Indeed, the movement of Greek humanism, once it moved to Byzantine Italy, soon spread to the entire European continent, thus suggesting the organic links and the unity of the Hellenic and modern anthropocentric cosmosystem (see Contogeorgis 1997a). The University of Constantinople was the successor of the ancient Schools of Athens, Alexandria, etc. It was the model of the modern University, stemming from the fact that it inspired the ecclesiastical mediaeval University. In contrast, however, with the “Western” University, university teaching during the Byzantine phase of the Hellenic cosmosystem was secular until the end and was intended to serve the “common goal”: the political space of the state and of society. The curricula of the University and the other Schools of Byzantium had an interdisciplinary content: law, philosophy, history, etc. combined generally with the approach to the political system (the “politevma”), its institutional framework, its agents (the authorities, the intermediary forces, the politically emancipated social body), the internal political life, foreign policy and public policies. The Church,

Political Science in Greece

191

lectual circles from which the functionaries of the State and of the society emerged. The great representatives of knowledge in this period are not theorists of law, judges and lawyers, theologists or philosophers, as in the first Byzantine period, nor mainly theologists as in the middle years. They are basically political thinkers and specialists in political life. Photius, Michael Psellos, Plethon Gemistos, Vissarion, Anne Comnini, and many others are the authentic representatives of this movement. The political dimension of law (e.g., Constantin Armenopoulos, 15th century) is also worth noting. The mass exodus of the representatives of Hellenic humanism in Europe during the 15th century contributed gradually to the transition of the continent to an intellectual creation inherent in the anthropocentric cosmosystem. However, the Ottoman domination deprived the vital space of the Hellenic cosmosystem of the production of original political thought for over a century. During this first period of Ottomanocracy, the most significant part of the Hellenic intellectual class maintained as its principal basis the “other” Byzantium, that is, the cities of Italy7. Yet, the impressive number of translations of classical texts, including political texts, in the Hellenic areas, just after the conquest, shows in fact that the reality of the political praxis dominated everywhere in the Hellenic societies. This did not cease to stir intellectual curiosity and political inquiry.8

7 8

for its part, maintained its own Schools exclusively for the training of its own officials. We make this distinction in order to note that the Hellenic cosmosystem included from time to time areas and peoples beyond the Hellenic societies (e.g., the cities of the Italian peninsula). With the fall of Byzantium (1453), the University and the Schools that previously operated had the same fate as the other institutions of the cosmopoliteia. However, some Byzantine thinkers surrounded the ecumenical patriarchy – which was transformed from a purely ecclesiastical institution into a sanctuary for Greek Orthodox culture and a main vehicle for Greek influence on the orthodox world – and they constituted in Fanari a source of significant intellectual life for the whole cosmosystem. However, the first school of the patriarchy, the forerunner of the “Great School” of Constantinople – and indeed, the first Greek university institution after the fall – was established in 1456. Among the thinkers who were challenged by Cyrillos Loukaris in the court of the patriarchate was the Athenian aristotelic philosopher Theophilos Korydaleus (1560-1646). Yet, the secular authorities in the system of cities and the Greek governors of Rumanian principates continued to have the responsibility for the overall educational system. A series of schools of university level made their appearance in the vital space of the Hellenic world, during the following period, from Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula to certain peripheral communities of Hellenism, which completed their development during the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century.

192

Georges Contogeorgis

A new movement developed during the 17th century and reached its apogee during the 18th and 19th centuries within the context of the cities. An original intellectual production, comparable to that of the largest European countries, reappeared in the vital space of the Hellenic cosmosystem. An impressive number of political works were published just when, in the big schools of the cities of Hellenism, the teaching of political philosophy, of ideas and of the political phenomenon occupied a significant place. From the ideological, social and political point of view, the Hellenic intellectual class of the period was substantially involved within the ecumenical and cosmopolitean orbit of the Hellenic cosmosystem. The profound osmosis between the Greek intelligentsia and that of the “anthropocentrically reborn” Europe would not push the former to choose the pro-ecumenical project of the state-nation. The system of the autonomous city − in the sense of the politeia that defines, produces and articulates the political phenomenon − and of the cosmopolis constitutes the starting point and the basis of its logic. It is of vital importance to acknowledge that the Hellenic societies experienced the status of the city until the 19th century, i.e., the city-state and its politeias of the classical period as they adapted to the ecumenical phase of Hellenic cosmosystem. Indeed, just when the European world was thinking about the “be” and the “how” of the new (free) man, the Hellenic world was living in the context of the city in a regime of freedom which cumulatively covered the individual, social (in the labour field) and political sphere of the person. Politics, far from being perceived as a simple (pre-democratic) right, is in reality the component element of universal autonomy, the essence of which is the political freedom of the social body. The political space surpasses the public space, the common interest the general interest. The sovereign political power that it invests in its legitimization in the “social contract” comes in contrast with the autonomy of the social body, i.e., its political self-government. Therefore, the society of the city is not defined as a private society. It composes the main political parameter of the politeia, the demos. That is why in the cities where politics is structured in terms of direct representational power, the system is classified as pre-democratic. Within the framework of the democratic politeia, the agent of representational authority is limited to short-term functions (it is elected for six months to one year), it is directly and constantly controlled by the social body, it is freely revocable and its function is necessarily collective. The principle of the majority applies to the assembly (ecclesia) of the social body, that is, for the politically sovereign demos, but not for the representatives for the deliberation of whom the principle of unanimity is applied. The fundamental problem of Hellenic political thought and the ruling class of the Ottomanocracy was substitution on the level of the central sys-

Political Science in Greece

193

tem, of the “Asian” type of Ottoman power by the Hellenic cosmopoliteia in its ecumenical environment9. A typical example is the project of Rigas Feraios (1757-1798) on “Hellenic Democracy.” This orientation of Greek political thought would undergo a serious trial following the great revolution of 1821, which, from another point of view, represents the most significant upheaval that Hellenism and its cosmosystem have ever known. The birth of a neo-Hellenic state which asphyxiated within its borders, in the margin of the Hellenic cosmosystem and the Hellenic societies, would be accompanied by a series of measures that would lead to the undeniable, even institutional, control of the state and, at the same time, of the overall society by the great powers. The transition from the profoundly democratic and “republican” political system, introduced from the beginning of the revolution, to the Bavarian absolute monarchy (1832-1843), imposed by the Holy Alliance, would mark the definite classification of the state in the perspective of ethnocentrism. Hellenic society was called upon to experience a political system that was suited to societies that had just come out of feudalism and not to its post-statocentric or ecumenical nature. Compared to the European societies, the Hellenic society is the only one that illustrates a different way of transition to the state-nation (see Contogeorgis 1995: 88-102). In the case of Western Europe, it is the state that forges the nation and ultimately the progress to an early anthropocentric society. In its exit from the feudal age, the political project inevitably focuses on individual freedom and on a body of rights that it actualizes or protects. Therefore, politics has a simply operational content. Social and political freedoms are absent altogether from the thinking of the social body. In the case of the Hellenic society, the nation, on the contrary, creates the state. That is, it undertakes, first of all, to be redefined from “nation cosmosystem” to “nationstate”; second, in its new version, to legitimize the catalysis of the fundamental attainment of the Hellenic cosmosystem – the ecumenical character of the economy or the partner relationship of capital with labour – and mainly the political freedom of society, in order to adapt to the proto-anthropocentric political system that the new state professes. This precedent of the Hellenic society explains a series of “deviations” in its political system, which ultimately confers on it, despite opposing views, the role of a kind of precursor in relation to the European “rule”: the introduction of universal suffrage (in the sense of a right and not of political free-

9

During this period, which began around the middle of the 18th century, the approach to the political phenomenon focused most of its interest on a significant number of Greek thinkers, among whom were Iossipos Moisiodax, Dimitri Katartzis, Adamandios Koray, the Anonymous, the representatives of the Fanari school, etc. Their works and also those of many others made up a part of the whole corpus that was the forerunner of modern political thinking and analysis.

194

Georges Contogeorgis

dom) from the very start of the Revolution (Constitutional Assembly of Epidaurus, December 1821 − January 1822), just when in Great Britain, in 1832, this right covered only 7 percent of the electorate10. The establishment, from the outset, of a stratified party system within the context of a parliamentary regime, with a loose republican central power, in contrast with the class or ideological parties and the social movements that dominated the modern world until recently11. And many more. Life in the immediately pre-ethnocentric past of the “direct” democratic politeia explains the profound politicization of Greek society, a politicization that specializes as political individualism and certainly not as mass behaviour or an adherence to the political power. The political behaviour of the Greek citizen may be evaluated bearing in mind the total time he dedicates daily to politics and not based on his adherence to the forces of mediation. The citizen approaches the politician as a mandate and not as an individual. His intense politicization prevented the political forces from assuming roles of “liberators” and “protectors” or the wealth of ideologies (such as statocentric socialism or liberalism) that belong to the proto-anthropocentric period. The exceptional politicization (that is, political emancipation) of the social body12 explains simultaneously the entire absence from modern-Greek society of phenomena that restrict the political field, such as personality cults or totalitarianism. The modern-Greek state demonstrates the parliamentary and party system with the longest history under conditions of universal suffrage, and, most of all, with the broadest field of politics13. 10 This means, indeed, that for the Greek society, at the moment of the creation of the new type of state, the individual and sociopolitical premises of the status of citizen existed. During the previous period, human rights and the status of the citizen did not preoccupy the individual as a member of the system of the autonomous city, but exclusively its relationship with the central state. Therefore, the meaning of citizenship was not necessary to be “invented” or to be “taught” to the Hellenic social body, as was the case in the European societies under the state-nation. For this reason, restricted suffrage and then, universal suffrage, which Europe rightly recorded as great progress, in the modern-Greek state the former was rejected from the start and the latter was simply a selfevident reality. 11 The end of the social ideologies and of the class parties in the modern world is placed at around the 1980s, less than a century after the introduction of universal suffrage and more than a century after its appearance in the context of the modern Greek state. 12 It is estimated that even today the Greek social body “consumes” three or more times more politics than the European average (see Hatzistratis 1994: 96; Contogeorgis 1996). 13 From this point of view, the dictatorships of Ioannis Metaxas (1936-1940) and of the colonels (1967-1974) must be regarded, in the overall Greek political system, as parentheses, owing to exceptional conditions, largely exogenous, and not as a

Political Science in Greece

2.2

195

The Period of the State-nation

The transition of the Hellenic societies from the system of the ecumenical cities to the territorial state, which defines itself by the element of the ethnos, radically altered the socio-political environment and the direction of political thought in Greece. The concept of the political phenomenon adapted to the specifications of the new system, which aspired to delimit it as a tautology of the state. Henceforth politics is perceived not as a function of its particular nature (as a phenomenon), but according to its structural expression (as a power and as a force), within the framework of the state-nation. This very quality of the citizen is defined by his national origin or by his belonging to the state. This suggests that the political determinant is the nation and the state, and not the people and the political system. The policies of the state (e.g., foreign policy) reflect national aspirations or policies; the inter-state system is defined as an international system; the general interest is equivalent to the national interest. The political system, in its turn, subjected and even identified with the state − the servant of the “national interest” and of the “public domain” − is recorded as being under the responsibility of public law. The sciences of politics are the sciences of the state. Works of political science that negotiate the earlier political system (of the age of the ecumenical cities) or the new Hellenic state are entitled as if they belonged to public law. The history of Hellenism and of its cosmosystem is ultimately reconstituted through an ethnocentric prism. The criterion for the Hellenic continuity is no longer its anthropocentric and cultural background, but racial origin. The history of the Hellenic cosmosystem is reduced to the history of Greece. This choice corresponds to the demands of this period14 and particularly to the need of the neo-Hellenic state nation to justify not only the anthropocentric reversion that it imposed upon the Hellenic society but also its inability to lead it to national integration. However, this choice proves to be deforming from every aspect of the Hellenic past and more importantly deprives modern social science of an unprecedented wealth of knowledge (i.e., of social and political systems of the anthropocentric type). Social science

transitional stage toward the so-called representational democracy, in the example of the fascist states of the period between the two world wars or of Spain and of Portugal (see Contogeorgis 2003b). 14 More specifically, in the interest of contributing to the discussion that was being conducted in certain European countries on the relationship between the modern and the ancient Greek “nation”. This relationship, in the conditions of the 19th century, necessarily presupposed the proof of uninterrupted racial continuity of the one and undivided Hellenic society.

196

Georges Contogeorgis

has continued to ignore this fact until today and, therefore, does not include it among its issues. Despite this, the modern-Greek state came close to the creation, in 1829, of a Higher School of Political Sciences, intended to train diplomats, administrators, judges and legislators, by the first President of the Hellenic Republic, Ioannis Kapodistrias, former Foreign Minister of Russia. The idea, which actually belonged to Alexander Stourtzas, then member of the Russian Council of State, was abandoned after the assassination of Kapodistrias and the establishment of the absolute monarchy. The project would be taken up again by Prime Minister Charilaos Tricoupis (1832-1896), but would not succeed because, in the meantime, his government would lose its majority in the Parliament. Thus, with the exception mainly of history, folklore and linguistics, whose presence was uninterrupted, social science, and by extension political science, was represented from then on by law, with the prevalence of the fields of constitutional law and administrative law. Public law made an invaluable contribution to the monarchy and to the party system: first, in the construction and legitimization of the institutional and ideological arsenal of the new State, and second, in the effort to completely abolish the foundations and the resistances of the previous cosmosystem (i.e., of the autonomous city, its democratic regime). Moreover, the consequences of the profound lack of correspondence of the political system of the state (which reserved for society the status of a private partner) with the high political development of the citizen (who meant to behave as mandator) is basically liable for a series of features of the Hellenic political environment: the meeting of the citizen with the politician under conditions of political individuality, the “multi-collective” and not class structure of the party system, the constant inability of the public domain to delimit and absorb the political dynamic that produces the social body, the legitimization of the political class in a context of perpetual contestation15. 15 What characterizes the public law of the 19th century is that it is placed between pure law and political science. With public law, the institutional framework of the state is approached, as is the constitutional system and the administrative organization, including the local self-government. With political science, the field of politics is investigated, either at the level of the state or in society. For this reason, apart from the works of constitutional and administrative law or in relation to local self-government, the political dimension of which is unquestioned, we find a wide range of studies of the political phenomenon stricto sensu and often real political manifestos, usually written by specialists of public law, who start out with the analysis and the critique of the Greek political system: monarchy, the partitocracy, political dynamics, or the function of the centralized state. Many of them do not hesitate, in fact, to intervene directly in the political life. In this particularly multifarious current are, among others, Nicolaos Moschovakis, Pericles Argyropoulos, Theodoros Flogaitis, Nicolaos Filaretos, Timoleon Fili-

Political Science in Greece

197

This tendency continues and is even accentuated16, particularly during the period between the two wars, or even later, until today. The period which opens in the second half of the 19th century is characterized by the manifest failure of the national type of state to create in the Ottoman territories a vital space for Hellenism, according to its economic, sociological, cultural and political dimension. This failure would weigh heavily on the political life of the country, particularly after the 1860s, with the emergence in the Balkans of the Slavic nationalisms. These nationalisms not only disputed the Greek monopoly on the heritage of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, but also the Greek society’s claim on participation in its distribution. The inability of the Greek political class to impose the application of the treaty of Sevres (1922) in Asia Minor and in eastern Thrace constitutes in this respect a major turning point. The defeat of Greece, which led to the mass exodus of nearly the entire Greek population from its centuries-old homes, brought about a final solution to the question of national integration, as well as to the presence of the last bases of the system of the city (1922). The liberal reform that started in 1909 by the government majority of E. Venizelos led, among other things, to the drafting of a law and its submission to the Parliament in 1911 regarding the introduction of a Higher School of Political Sciences, which, however, did not pass. In the meantime, foreign ventures and the violent interference of the throne on the political life of the country17 would cause serious injury to the process of domestic reconstrucmon, Nicolaos I. Saripolos, Nicolaos Papadoukas, or Diomidis Kyriakos. On the other hand, this current was connected entirely with the idea of the state-nation. The project of one centralized state was supported warmly in reality because it was in harmony with the rhetoric of the national integration and the nature of the centrifugal force of Greek society. This was a force that referred not to a system that had been rejected by the national conscience (such as the feudalism of Western Europe), but to the system of the city which was the vehicle of the individual, social and political autonomy of the social body. Thus, the project for the local self-government, which is supported by servants of public law, reflects most simply the resistance of society to the centralized force that essentially aimed to minimize the status of the citizen in his juvenile role as elector, manipulator of the partitocracy and of the state power. Some others would sidestep the narrow context of the academic community, in an attempt to combine the sociopolitical action with the analysis of the political phenomenon and the theory of ideas (Platon Drakoulis, Stavros Kallergis). 16 Despite the significant influence of German positivism which is represented mainly by George Aggelopoulos and Nicolaos N. Saripolos. Besides, the idea of a university School of Political Science found a new supporter in the person of G. Aggelopoulos (see Flogaitis 1982: 152). 17 The intervention of the Throne mainly concerned the foreign choices of the country with ramifications concerning the application of the Treaty of Sevres. The consequences would be equally felt in the political and particularly in the

198

Georges Contogeorgis

tion, the consequences of which would leave their mark up to the present time. These developments on the political scene reinforce the tendency that had already manifested itself during the 19th century, and which marks the appearance of numerous works of political theory and research on Greek political life. Their distinctive feature was that their authors developed an intense sociopolitical action18. This movement intensified at the beginning of the 20th century, and would take on significant political dimensions, whose objective would be the contestation of the sociopolitical and intellectual life of the country. In 1916, the Social and Political Sciences Society was founded, which for many years published the scientific journal “Archives of Economic and Social Sciences” and organized lectures and other events. In this Society, a host of intellectuals presented their works on, among others, political science, such as that of Evangelos Lembesis in 1929 (“Review of Public Opinion”) and in 1931 (“The Problem of Capitalist Accumulation in the Agricultural Economy”), among others. In 1925, the director of the “Archives,” Dimitri Kalitsounakis, published his work, “Political Science.” This general movement resulted in the creation, finally in 1927, of the project of a Higher School of Political Sciences, intended to promote the study and teaching of the political phenomenon, the political institutions and the state19. From the beginning, this School, which after 1930 joined the project of another supporter of this idea, Alexandros Pantos, and adopting his party system. 18 With the remarkable exception of many intellectuals and scientists, some of whom would keep their distance from the law approaching the political phenomenon with the tools of sociology (e.g., Dimitri Daniilidis, Evagelos Lempesis, Nicolaos Kazazis, George Skliros, Avrotelis Eleftheropoulos, Ioannis Sykoutris, Pericles Giannopoulos). 19 We refer, for example, to E. Lempesis, who, after supporting his doctoral dissertation entitled The Sociology of Hellenism (1927), published the lessons he gave at the Panteios School (1931) on the subject of Political sociology. Lempesis is one of the most important representatives of social science in modern Greece, being the one who revived political science stricto sensu in the environment of the modern-Greek state. Among his works are: “Critique of public opinion” (1929), “Parties and Classes”, “The Factors of German elections”, “Modern problems of capitalism”, “Society and state”, “Communism”, “Venizelos, sociopsychological study”, “The anti-Venizelos, sociopsychological study”, “The new Russian Constitution”, “Venizelism and leftism”, “Society and community of F. Toennies”, “The Great Significance of the Idiots in modern life” (1942), “Sociology of the Press” (1944), “The revolutionary mass” (1945). Also noted are many entries which he wrote for the Dictionary of sociology and politics by “Sinoron”, the majority of which refer to pure political science. Finally, he was Director and publisher of the Sociological Review.

Political Science in Greece

199

name20, was divided in two departments: a) political science and history, and b) economics and sociology. It is noted that “the studies of the School differ substantially from the instruction given by university institutions. Although it contains subjects equivalent to those of the Higher Institutions, its mission is different … in accordance with the modern concepts of the educational system recommended by the political and social sciences.” The curricula of the Panteios School thus broke with the tradition of the science of Law while at the same time approached the political phenomenon from a rather multidisciplinary point of view, whose previous position fell to what is nowadays called political sociology. In 1925, with the law founding the University of Thessaloniki, two departments were formed within the School of Law and Economic Sciences: (a) law and (b) economics and political sciences. A little later, in 1930, the Law School of the University of Athens established a programme of specialization in the fourth year, which led to a diploma in political and economic sciences. Towards the middle of the 1930s, the first sociology chair was created at the same university, but dealt more with the history of sociopolitical ideas. In 1937, the royal dictatorship (1936-1940), conscious of the catalytic role of the Panteios School of Political Sciences in the ideological “promotion” of society and the training of managers, converted it into a public university institution, while preserving its two initial departments. This initiative is of particular interest in the case of Greece, because it reveals the reaction of the powers-that-be with respect to an innovative academic experiment, in a country where, for reasons that we have cited, the tide of fascism that shook Europe did not find practically any response in society, in political life or even among intellectuals. It is precisely this deep political rooting of Greek society and the inherent democratic emancipation that are behind the intense questioning of doctrine of sovereignty of power. This persistence, which links citizenship with the quality of the mandatory, also led the Communist Party − marginal before − and its allies, to attempt during the Occupation a return to the system of the autonomous and self-governing city in the free territories (1941-1944). In 1943, a reform of Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences changed the subjects of its departments, one of which was concentrated in political science and the other in journalism. 20 This is where the name of the “Panteios” School comes from. Alexandros Pantos’s will had already been written in 1915 and expressed explicitly his wish to create a School of Political Sciences so that Greek children could study the political sciences as he had. The first school was established by the Cypriot politician George Frankoudis, who for this purpose created the society, “Educational Renaissance” in 1924. According to him, the aim of the School ought to be “the instruction of the Greek Nation and the organization of the Greek State as a political system based on order, the rule of law and progress.”

200

Georges Contogeorgis

The Civil War (1944-1949) and then the Cold War drew Greece into the democratic deficit of the world order, which restrictively defines the content of political alternance, while at the same time restricting the area of political science. Law and the economy are unconditionally imposed on university institutions. The Panteios Higher School of Political Science and certain circles of teachers in the Faculties of Law, the economy and of the political sciences continued to promote the studies about the state, the political system, the public policies, the history of the institutions and of international relations (Nicolaos Pantazopoulos, Faedon Vegleris, George Tenekides, Themistocles Tsatsos, George Daskalakis, and many others). At that time history was becoming essentially an accessory of the philological programme in the respective Faculties. In 1951-1952, it was persistently repeated that, as a university institution, the Panteios School was intended to offer a different education from that offered by the other university institutions: initiating young people into the political institutions and political theory, the economic sciences, the various branches of the political and social sciences, in order to promote a critical approach to the political and social phenomena. At the same time, several subjects of the political sciences and of international relations continued to be included in the curricula from 1948 to 1954. In 1952, an Institute of Social Sciences operated within the Panteios School. Nevertheless, with the announcement of the founding of an Institute of Journalism, whose curriculum was envisaged to last three years, it is emphasized that “the teaching of the science of journalism be rigorously limited to the theoretical and national context, and any interference in the political issues of the country be strictly forbidden.” Political science, strictly speaking, is not included in the syllabus21. Thus, handbooks entitled politeiology, public law (constitutional and administrative), public finance, international law, absorb the analysis of the political phenomenon and often try to cover the subject of political science. Despite this, several professors of constitutional and administrative law developed a somewhat regular contact with the International Political Science Association (IPSA) from its foundation. In 1955 the Hellenic Political Science Association (HPSA) was created, formed, however, primarily of lawyers, particularly by members of the Council of State. Its scope remained marginal or even insignificant for political science. This unfavourable climate for political science, which was shaped progressively by the international political circumstances shortly before World War II and continued after it during the Cold War, appears to have changed during the 1960s. In the curricula at the Panteios Higher School of Political 21 Nevertheless, there are courses in “politeiology”, “politics”, sociology, social psychology, sociology of labour, the political parties, the parliamentary system, or constitutional history.

Political Science in Greece

201

Sciences in the academic year 1960/61, political science already occupied a significant place, while at the same time we see the appearance of comparative studies on contemporary political systems (British, French, American, Russian and others), as well as courses in sociology, economic sciences, international studies, including international relations. The tendency to return to political science stricto sensu to the university system had already made a significant step. In 1963, the Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences was again reorganized, the spearhead of which was the reorientation of its two departments: one took on political science and the other public administration. The following year, political science stricto sensu acquired a chair, while international relations was upgraded, re-establishing instructional autonomy. A little later, in 1967, the programme of specialization in the Faculty of Law of the University of Athens became an independent department of political science and economics. In the two last years of study, this department is oriented in two programmes of specialization that lead to two separate diplomas. One of them deals with public law and political science. The creation of a chair of political science stricto sensu in the Faculty of Law, in the mid1960s, and a relatively autonomous presence of international relations in the curriculum was the result of this development. In the meantime, two events in the field of research marked the end of the 1950s: the creation of the Royal (later National) Research Foundation and of the National Centre for Social Sciences (EKKE) (1958). The Byzantine and the Neohellenic Research Centres, created in 1960, as well as the Centre for Hellenic and Roman Antiquity (1977), put forward broad historical aspects which interest political science, such as the history of the institutions, political life and the movement of ideas. The EKKE was to be devoted to the study of contemporary social phenomena, including political phenomena. At all events, the approach to the political phenomenon as well as to political thought in Greece, continued after the second world war, in the traditional way, that is, it was particularly privileged by a strongly politicized intelligentsia and by literary circles. A rich bibliography relating to the political phenomenon (studies of the institutions, of political life and the political parties, of ideas, of foreign and international relations, or of public policies) was added to that of the previous period, of which the generation of the 1920s constitutes a point of reference in the ideological and intellectual evolution of Hellenic society. With the dawning of the 1960s, a number of political societies made their appearance in the intellectual and political life of the country, beside the political forces that supported modernizing projects. The publication, in 1961, of the work of Grigoris Dafnis, The Greek Political Parties, and especially, in 1965, of the voluminous work by Jean Meynaud (with the collaboration of Gerassimos Notaras and Panayotis Merlopoulos), The Political

202

Georges Contogeorgis

Forces in Greece, constitute a major phase in the development of political science. The interlude of the dictatorship (1967-1974) paved the way for the hastening of political developments, marked by an intense radicalization, both of political life and of the intellectual class. The consequences of this radicalization became particularly perceptible in the social sciences, mainly in the period after 1974. The most outstanding sign of this situation was the reestablishment, in 1975, of the Hellenic Political Science Association 22. This association was from the very start a dynamic professional and scientific forum (its members were, as of the first year of its existence, nearly 200), which asserted itself as a significant point of reference in the intellectual and political life of the country. During the period 1975-1981, it organized conferences and meetings; it intervened (with reports or publications) in various aspects of political life (e.g., in questions of modernization of the party system or of university reform), thus contributing greatly to the establishment of political science. In 1978, the Association published “Social and political forces in Greece,” which was an important development in terms of the scientific debate about the political system of the country, while the next year the first issue of the Political Science Review was being prepared, with a special feature on the elections. At the same time, the HPSA became a member of IPSA and established active relationships with other international institutions. During this period, the status of membership in the HPSA was much sought-after by most of the political world, which participated or regularly followed its activities. The university reform of 1982 offered political science new opportunities on an institutional level. The existing curricula in political science at the Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences and at the National University of Athens were reorganized in the context of the new academic units: new departments and sections. Moreover, a section of public law and political science was created in the law department at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Finally, the EKKE opened its doors to political scientists and to political studies stricto sensu. The great turning point in political science, and generally in the social sciences, is linked to the reform of 1989. This reform was conceived and implemented by the chancellorship of the Panteios School based on the previous action of HPSA and virtually imposed upon the political power. It included the conversion of the five university Schools existing in Athens, Piraeus, and Thessaloniki, into Universities. Four of these specialized in the

22 The initiative was taken by Yannis Kinnas and myself, with the invaluable assistance and moral support of Gerassimos Notaras, Phaedon Vegleris and Helen Jean Meynaud.

Political Science in Greece

203

main branches of the social sciences23. In these new universities, in place of each of the Schools, many new departments (approximately eight at each new university) and sections with their own curricula as of the first year, were created, in step with the scientific currents of the times, as well as institutes and university research centres. The Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences includes a total of eight departments divided in directions and sections (a total of 29), with the subjects of political science (and its various branches) or related disciplines: Departments of Political Science and International Studies, Urban and Regional Development, Social Policy and Anthropology, Communication and Mass Media, Law, Sociology, and Psychology. The impact of this reform went far beyond political science and the Panteion University. With regard to political science and its branches, new departments and sections were created at the Universities of Athens, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Thrace, Crete, the Aegean, and Thessaly. Moreover, departments of social sciences included political science courses. The integration of the country into the EC (January 1, 1981), gave new impetus to European and International Studies, in the context of which political science occupies a not at all negligible place. This report would be incomplete if it failed to mention the contribution to the social sciences of the phenomenon of the private institutions that operate as annexes of foreign universities in Greece. This phenomenon appeared after the 1980s and responds to the keen demand for university education in Greece, combined with the student selection system (see 2.2) and the constitutional prohibition of the establishment of private universities (ecclesiastic or secular). Today it is a reality, felt particularly in the field of the social sciences.

23 Apart from the Panteios Higher School, the plan included the Higher School of Economic and Commercial Sciences, the Higher Agricultural School of Athens, the Higher Industrial School of Piraeus and the Higher Industrial School of Thessaloniki.

Georges Contogeorgis

204

3 The Current State of Teaching and Research 3.1

University Teaching: General Remarks

The Institutions University education in Greece is provided exclusively by public institutions24, which are classified in two categories: The Universities and the Technological Institutions (TEI). There are at present 19 universities and 16 TEI around the country. Added to this is a number of foreign institutions (according to estimates, more than 25), supported by the private sector25, which offer university curricula recognized by the universities of origin. Graduates of these institutions, while not formally recognized by the Greek state (they must register in the corresponding department at the Greek university, according to the assessment of their studies by DIKATSA), enter the private sector of the economy of the country. They are usually accepted for graduate studies at universities abroad. Most of these institutions have departments or courses in political science or its various branches and related disciplines. The TEI, for their part, do not have departments of political science. However, many of them offer classes that cover the broader field of political science, from public policy and services to European policy. Finally, the National Centre for Public Administration (NCPA), created in 1983 to contribute to the modernization of the public sector, includes four 24 It must be remembered that Greek education, both public and private, is at all levels secular, whereas the ecclesiastical schools, which are all public, are intended exclusively for the training of officials of the Church. This fact, which is recorded in the centuries-old secular tradition of the Hellenic cosmosystem and is connected with the profoundly anthropocentric constitution of Greek societies, was a constant throughout the period of Byzantium and of Ottomanocracy. 25 These private institutions are officially called “Centres of Free Studies” and they are intended, first of all, to provide limited professional training. Many of them have contracts with one or more foreign university institutions, the quality of which varies significantly: from the London School of Economics to some insignificant establishments (mainly American and British). The studies they offer concern to a large degree the social sciences and the humanities and cover either a part or the entire university curriculum, including the doctorate. Thus, 40.6 percent of them offer courses for a certain number of semesters, usually for two years, while at the rest of them the students have to continue their studies at the cooperating university abroad. 32.3 percent of them offer studies leading to the first diploma, 15.78 percent to the Bachelor, 6.02 percent offer complete studies, even at the post-graduate level (MA or MBA). Finally, 0.78 percent of them offer studies at all levels, including the doctorate.

Political Science in Greece

205

principal institutions: the National School of Public Administration, The Institute for Continuing Education (ICE), the Institute for Introductory Administrative Education (IIAE), and the Regional Institutes for Continuing Education (RICE). Today, the NCPA is comprised of the following basic educational units: the NSPA, the National School of Local Self-Administration (NSLS), the Institute for the Training of Civil Servants (ITCS), and the RICE. The NCPA offers modules of teaching, programmes of specialization or continuing education that belong, by their very nature, to the domain of political science stricto sensu, its various branches and related disciplines. Thirty-three percent of the graduates of the NCPA have political science degrees. The goal and the limitations of this report oblige us to omit the last cases, either of the public or of the private sector, and to focus on the traditional educational institutions and research centres.

The Structure of University Teaching The public university in Greece is governed by the law of 1982, which ensures its autonomy with respect to the state. “Academic freedom” includes “the freedom of movement of ideas and the freedom of teaching and research.” The right of asylum “consists in the prohibition of interference by the public power in the university campus without the invitation or the permission of the university authorities” (Article 2, 5). The budget of the universities depends essentially on regular funding by the State. The university authorities are elected by the entire faculty, to which a number of students are added which varies according to the situation (for example, for the election of Chancellors, the number of student representatives was initially equal to the number of teachers, but today does not exceed 30 percent of the faculty). The sovereign body of the University is the Academic Council, which is composed of representatives of the departments and the students. The department constitutes the fundamental academic unit that covers a scientific discipline. It may be divided into areas of specialization and, in the majority of cases, it is articulated in sections (units of teaching and research), which cover a related subject of the respective discipline. The sovereign body of the department and the section is the General Assembly of the teachers and the representatives of the students and the postgraduate candidates (50 percent and 15 percent respectively of the number of teachers). The General Assembly decides on all questions relating to the activity of the department, such as the teaching and scientific orientation, the specific objectives and the curriculum of the department. The studies are divided into three cycles, each leading to a diploma. The first cycle extends over at least eight six-month semesters and leads to a de-

Georges Contogeorgis

206

gree. This is followed by a cycle of four six-month semesters leading to a Diploma of Postgraduate Studies. Lastly, the cycle of studies which leads to a doctorate diploma lasts at least six semesters, and is a continuation of the second cycle. It is reasonable to conclude that the Bologna Process has had almost no impact as yet on political science in Greece. More generally, in the Greek university system, while the Bologna Process is often debated, its impact on policy making up to now has been negligible. At present, the Bologna Process awaits legislative reform by the government. The curricula consist of the syllabus and activities offered by the sections and the departments. They are made up of two cycles, each of which takes four semesters. The programme is, according to the legal framework, the recommended one. Each student can adapt it to his own needs and interests. That is why the syllabus is divided into two categories: the required courses, which make up about a quarter of the total, and the elective courses. The student can also choose courses from another department, Greek or foreign, provided that the department gives its consent. In order to obtain his diploma, a student must have completed at least eight six-month semesters and to have completed the minimum of units required by his department. Methods of student assessment vary, and, in principle, the teacher has the last word. These include the traditional type of examination, supervised projects, short projects, and continuous assessment.

3.2

Political Science as a University Subject

University Units of Political Science (1) The teaching of political science in public university institutions can be classified, for purposes of systemization, in three categories that correspond to the degree of affiliation of the departments with it: • Departments of political science stricto sensu, which grant a special diploma in political science in each of the cycles. • Departments which relate to the various sub-disciplines of political science or whose curricula are interdisciplinary. These programmes usually combine political science with one or more related subjects, preferably law, communication, economics, sociology, or history. • Sections of political science stricto sensu (which consequently legitimize the corresponding department to grant a diploma in political science, particularly in the second or third cycle). Sections relating to the various branches of political science or which are interdisciplinary, nevertheless including political science. Finally, departments that offer teaching modules in the field of political science.

Political Science in Greece

207

(2) The departments of political science stricto sensu are the following seven: • The Department of Political Science and History at Panteion University. This department grants two special degrees: one degree in political science and another in history. There are currently six sections: Political Theory and Theory of the State, Political Sociology and Comparative Political Analysis, Political Systems, Hellenic and Balkan Studies, European Studies, Modern History; • The Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the National University of Athens. This department offers three cycles of specialization: Political Analysis, International and European Studies, and Administrative Science. It contains four sections: Political science, Social theory and sociology, International and European studies, Administrative science; • The Department of International and European Economic and Political Studies at the University of Macedonia. This department grants two special degrees: in International and European Economy, and in Political Science and Diplomacy. This department has a total of 15 professors; • The Department of Political Science at the University of Crete; • The Department of Political Science at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; • The Department of International and European Studies at the Panteion University; • The Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of the Peloponnese. (3) Departments which, because of their subject or the contents of their curricula, can be classified in the category of political science. These departments are as follows: • Department of Public Administration (Panteion University); Department of Communication and Mass Media (Panteion University); Department of Urban and Regional Development (Panteion University); Department of Social Policy and Anthropology (Panteion University); Department of Communication and the Media (University of Athens); Department of Social Administration (University of Thrace); Department of Journalism and the Media (University of Thessaloniki); Department of International and European Studies (Economics University of Athens); Department of European Studies (University of Piraeus). (4) Sections of political science stricto sensu, sections of various branches of political science, sections of an interdisciplinary nature, which nevertheless include political science, sections that offer courses in political science. In this category, there is a large number of faculties and departments (or their sections), such as:

Georges Contogeorgis

208

• •

The School of Humanities (University of Thessaly); the School of Social Sciences (University of the Aegean); the School of Social Sciences (University of Crete); Departments: Sociology (Panteion University); Law (Panteion University); Psychology (Panteion University); Methodology, History and Theory of Science (University of Athens); Economic Studies (University of Athens); Law (University of Thrace); Law (University of Thessaloniki); Law (University of Athens); Economic, International and European Studies (University of Athens); Philosophy, Education and Psychology (University of Ioannina); Philosophy, Education and Psychology (University of Athens); History (Ionian University); History (University of Thessaloniki); Social Administration (University of the Peloponnese); etc.

The Third Cycle The Diploma of Postgraduate Studies takes, as a rule, four six-month semesters and covers the subjects of one or more departments. A department can organize several cycles of postgraduate studies. For example, the Department of political science and public administration of the University of Athens offers three postgraduate programmes: political science and social theory, European organization and diplomacy, and state and national policies. The Department of Political Science and History at the Panteion University offers the following postgraduate programmes: Political Science and Political History. The common denominator of the third cycle is that is leads to a doctorate degree. There is only one type of doctorate that is granted by the department. A department is in principle legitimized to accept thesis subjects that belong to the discipline(s) that it represents. This means that a doctoral thesis in political science (in the strict sense of the term or one of its branches) can be defended in the departments of political science stricto sensu (and the departments which offer political science or in interdisciplinary departments) as well as in departments which offer courses in political science (e.g., in the context of a section). Candidates for the doctorate are selected on the basis of their credentials by the General Assembly of the department. The candidacy is introduced by the relevant section. A large number of holders of postgraduate (Master, DEA) and doctorate diplomas in the field of political science obtained their degree in one or more foreign universities. This number does not include the Greek diaspora, which maintains institutional links with Greece. For a diploma to be formally recognized in Greece (first of all in the public sector), it is necessary to pass the evaluation of an independent public institution (DIKATSA).

Political Science in Greece

209

The Faculty The body of teachers is divided into four levels: Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. The law defines the qualifications necessary for acquiring the rank of professor. The responsibility for the entire procedure (from the scientific identity of the position and the proclamation, to the election) belongs to the department. The funding of teaching posts, which is ensured by the State, is done, in principle, within the framework of a three-year programme by the government in cooperation with the universities. Table 1: Political science departments Institution Department of Political Science and History (Panteion University) Department of Political Science and Public Administration (University of Athens) Department of Political Science (University of Thessaloniki) Department of Political Science (University of Crete) Department of Political Science and International Relations (University of the Peloponnese) Department of European and International Studies (Panteion University) Department of International and National Economics and Political Science (University of Macedonia) Other departments (related disciplines) Total

Professors 32

Assistants 7

45

7

12 13 -

-

37

6

15

-

65 219

20

Table 2: Teaching staff − departments: branches of political science and interdisciplinary Institutions Department of Public Administration (Panteion University) Department of Communication and Mass Media (Panteion University) Department of Communication and Mass Media (University of Athens) Department of Journalism and Mass Media (University of Thessaloniki) Department of Urban and Regional Development (Panteion Univ.) Department of Social Policy & Social Anthropology (Panteion University) Department of Social Administration (University of Thrace) Department of International and European Studies (Economics University of Athens) Department of European Studies (University of Piraeus) Total

Professors 37 20

Assistants 13 4

25

3

17

4

32

9

22

4

12 22

-

15 202

37

210

Georges Contogeorgis

The body of scientific assistants remains practically marginal, owing to the fact that its status was removed after the enforcement of the law of 1982. It, therefore, includes the personnel that occupied this position before the reform of 1982. In its place the status of the Research Fellow was introduced and is recruited from among the students of the third cycle. There are also grants for undergraduates who achieve honours. The evaluation of the number of teachers in political science involves the same difficulties as those mentioned earlier and which is related to the divergences concerning the definition of the political phenomenon and the delimitation of what the subject covers. This is why we make a point of following the criterion already adopted for the classification of political science at the level of teaching.

Students The Undergraduates The selection of students is done by Panhellenic examination of high school seniors. This is one of the reasons why a significant number of candidates who are not accepted go to the private annexes of foreign universities and abroad. Greek undergraduates abroad are estimated to number more than 65,000, while those enrolled at the above annexes are nearly 30,000. Of the students abroad, 23.4 percent are undergraduates and 76.6 percent are pursuing postgraduate or doctorate degrees. In any case, Greek students that study at universities in other countries of the European Union represent approximately 15 percent of the students at Greek universities, as opposed to 1.3 percent of the European average. Actually, the average duration of university studies in political science is five years (eight six-month semesters, plus the diploma). In order to graduate a student is required to pass a foreign language examination. In each university, there are foreign language departments that the students are required to register in. However, those students who can certify the knowledge of at least one foreign language are exempted. Indeed, during primary (demotic) and secondary (gymnasium and lyceum) education, the pupils are required to learn two foreign languages. In addition, 87 percent of them receive supplementary private language instruction. Finally, more than 67.2 percent of secondary school students claim to have a good command of a second foreign language. Thus, 99.2 percent of secondary school students learn English, 67.6 percent French, and 27.3 percent learn German. Following closely are Italian and Spanish. Thus, according to statistics, Greek students place at the highest level within the European Union from the point of view of foreign language learning.

Political Science in Greece

211

In the way of a conclusion, it is worth noting that the fundamental characteristic feature of university studies of political science in Greece is that the curriculum is focused from the beginning (first semester) on the subject of this discipline. This autonomy makes the case of Greece rather an exception in Europe as in most countries political science is offered as minor courses or as a specialization in the last years of undergraduate study and particularly in the postgraduate cycle. Students of the Third Cycle (Doctoral Level) The estimate of the number of students in the third cycle in political science raises the same problems as those mentioned above. However, given the disparity of the related disciplines and the specificity of a doctoral thesis, we shall limit the discussion, just as an indication, to the departments of political science stricto sensu. At the level of the third cycle, the phenomenon of graduates (DEA, Master, Doctorate and all their equivalents) of foreign origin presents greater weight to the process of reproduction of Greek scientific personnel. Every department of Political Science (and also departments of related disciplines) has organized postgraduate programmes with more than one direction.

3.3

Research in Political Science

Research in political science is carried out: (a) in the National Research Centres; (b) in the Institutes and the University Research Centres; (c) in the independent Institutes, Foundations and Research Centres. “National” Research This is the research carried out at the National Research Foundation (EIE) and at the National Centre for Social Research (EKKE). The EIE covers certain aspects of the political phenomenon through the research carried out at two of the Centres (now Institutes): the Institute of Byzantine Research and the Institute of Neohellenic Research. Political research plays a more significant role in the EKKE. It is divided into three institutes: urban and rural sociology, political sociology, and social policy. The EKKE has more than 73 researchers, all of whom are holders of a postgraduate degree (DEA, Master, Doctorate) and are classified in four ranks. Sixteen of them work at the Institute of Political Sociology. The political research at the EKKE is currently oriented towards electoral sociology and the study of political personnel. Other research projects relate to social exclusion, xenophobia, the perception of the “other,” immi-

Georges Contogeorgis

212

gration, or the flow of information within the State. About 35 percent of its resources come from the European Union. University Research This research is carried out either directly by the departments and the sections, or within the context of the institutes, the laboratories and the research centres. Research at the university is carried out by the faculty and secondarily by external (outside) researchers. Each university has a special budget reserved for research, and a committee that decides at the first stage on requests for funding. The Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences accommodates the majority of the institutes and all of the research centres in the field of political science and related branches. It includes specifically two institutes and 15 research centres, which are as follows: •

Institute of Regional Development (1975); Institute of International Relations (1989); Hellenic Centre for Political Research (1989); Centre for Social Morphology and Social Policy (1989); Centre for Social Theory and Applied Social Research (1991); Centre for European Affairs (1991); Research Centre for Public Policy (1989); Research Centre for Modern Greek Society (1993); Research Centre for Economic Policy (1991); Centre for Audio-Visual Communication (1991); Centre for Journalism (1991); Centre for Social Psychology (1991) and others.

At the National University of Athens there are nine laboratories of interest to political science: the political communication laboratory, or the audio-visual laboratory. The institute closest to political science is that of Hellenic constitutional history and of constitutional science. There is also a European Centre for Public Law. The University of Thessaly houses a laboratory of political research and surveys. The University of Thrace has laboratories of European studies, constitutional law, comparative and European labour law, etc. The Ionian University houses laboratories of European history, the related sciences of history, etc. Finally, there are also institutes and laboratories that deal to some degree with the political phenomenon at other universities. Independent Institutes, Foundations, and Research Centres This category includes the principal independent research institutions (public or private). Among them are:

Political Science in Greece

•

213

The Centre for European and International Law (Thessaloniki); The Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) (Athens); The Foundation of Mediterranean Studies (Athens); The Hellenic Centre for European Studies (Athens); The Foundation for Research of the Balkan Peninsula (Thessaloniki); The Society for Balkan Research (Thessaloniki); The Research Centre for Neohellenic Society (Academy of Athens); The Hellenic Centre for Philosophical Research (Academy of Athens); The Research Centre for Medieval and Modern Hellenism (Academy of Athens); The Institute of Labour (Athens); The D. Karageorgas Foundation for Public Economy and Policy (Athens); The Maragopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (Athens); The Hellenic Society for Local Development and Self-Government (Athens); The PETA, Information, Training and Local Development (Athens).

The above list is not exhaustive and does not include private institutions (such as party institutes and foundations), which are of a specialized nature, although for many of them the study of the political phenomenon is among their priorities. Lastly, we should stress that the broadening of the field of politics and the development of new data in the shaping of public opinion have opened up a vast field of study and research for political science. The first opinion poll in Greece was carried out before the elections of 1946. Non-systematic surveys on the political and electoral behaviour of public opinion followed, until 1975. Ever since, the carrying out of surveys is undertaken by survey companies. Some of these companies, which operate in the field of politics, have demonstrated work whose content can be described as scientific. The most important of these are: MRB, AGB, ALCO, PRC, MEDIAPLAN, ICAP GALLUP HELLAS S.A., and KAPPA RESEARCH.

4 Professional Associations, Scientific Journals, Publishing Companies 4.1

Professional Associations

The Hellenic Association of Political Science (formally established in 1955) has been effectively active since 1975 and is the professional and scientific home of political scientists. Today its members number nearly 260. Its activities include conferences, meetings, and publications. The HPSA is a member of IPSA, of epsNet, of ECPR and other European and international organizations.

Georges Contogeorgis

214

Apart from HPSA, there are other professional associations of the related disciplines, such as: •

4.2

The Association of Greek Constitutionalists, the Association of Greek Sociologists, the Hellenic Association of International Law and International Relations, the Hellenic Psychological Association, the Association of Greek Psychologists, the Hellenic University Association of European Studies, the Association of Greek Economists.

Journals, Publishing Companies and Libraries of Political Science

(a) Political Science Journals (specialized and general, which to a large degree cover the political phenomenon): •

Hellenic Review of Political Science (publication of the HPSA), Political Science (Publication of the University of Crete), The Tribune of Social Sciences (University of Thessaly), The Review of Social Research (Publication of the EKKE), The Parliamentary Review, New Sociology, The Constitution (review of constitutional law and political science), Democracy and Nature, Administrative Review, Administrative Reform, Leviathan, Deucalion, Historica, Review of the European Communities, Defense and Diplomacy, Strategy, Balkania (Publication of EKEM), Topos (journal of urban and regional studies), Topica (journal of the Association of Studies of the Humanities), Utopia (journal of political theory and culture), Contemporary Topics, Neusis (journal of history and philosophy of science and technology, issued by the department of methodology, history and theory of science, University of Athens).

(b) Publishing Companies, University Publications Each university on its own publishes teaching notes that help in the learning process. Each course is usually accompanied by teaching notes. The university publications frequently publish scientific directories and other works which are usually distributed outside the market. The institutes and the research centres as a rule issue collections, the minutes of conferences, research studies, and bulletins. University publications are edited and distributed mainly by privately owned publishing houses. These private publishers issue the main university textbooks that are distributed to the students. According to this unique system, all of the students receive all course books (usually one or two books per course) recommended by the instructor and approved by the department, free of charge, apart from the course notes. This practice reflects the State’s choice to assume the entire cost of public education on all levels, from pri-

Political Science in Greece

215

mary education to the university. Thus, each university draws up individual contracts with publishers that have published or undertake to publish textbooks recommended by the instructors to support the teaching of their courses or seminars. To illustrate the breadth of this undertaking, let’s take an example, that of the Panteion University: In 1996, the total number of titles (course notes and books) distributed to the students was on average 1,200; 750 of these titles were books, of which 580 were written by Greek authors, and the rest (170) were translations of foreign books. In 1996 there were 112 publishers that had contracts with Panteion, 24 of which distributed more than five textbook titles, while 17 of them distributed between 10 and 50 titles. In the academic year 2004-2005 the total number of books distributed remained at the same level. However, the number of book titles increased to 830 with a corresponding reduction in the Notes. The example of Panteion University is in this respect representative of all of the university institutions in Greece. It should be noted that the publications of political science papers occupy a significant place in the sum of the publications in Greece. The majority of the publishers offer collections of political works. The number of translations of political works is among the largest in Europe. (c) Political Science Libraries University libraries. The libraries, which specialize in the social sciences and particularly in political science, are found in the universities, the institutes and the research centres. We mention, among others, the libraries of: •

the Panteion University, the National University of Athens, the University of Thessaloniki, the University of Crete, the University of Ioannina, the University of Thessaly;

as well as the libraries of: •

the EKKE, the National Centre for Public Administration/EIE, the ELIAMEP, the IPA (Panteion University), the IDIS (Panteion University), the Centre for European and International Law.

The “national” and other libraries: We mention just as an indication: • •

the National Library, the Library of Parliament, the Library of the Academy of Athens, the Genadeios Library; a series of libraries of scientific or cultural institutions whose interest in political science is increasing (e.g., Benakeios Library, the libraries of the French Institute, the Goethe Institute, the British Council, the Bank of Greece).

216

Georges Contogeorgis

5 The Social Demand for Political Science The social demand for political science is uneven. The presence of political science is strongly felt at the level of the political system as well as that of the top functionaries of the public sector and the rationally specialized institutions. At the same time, the problem of access to jobs of graduates arises with particular acuteness. The presence of political science within the framework of the political system can be attributed to the dominant role of politics in Greece. This role has taken on catalytic dimensions since the surge of telemedia and the institutional integration of the country in the international system. The dictatorial parenthesis of 1936-1941 showed the central role played by the Panteios School of Political Science in the training of executives of the public sector and in the evolution of ideas. During the Cold War, political science served by priority the criticism of the democratic deficit of the West and the demand for a larger democratic scope; in Greece in about the middle of the 1970s, political science was carried away by the tide of “political change.” It is generally accepted that political science – and its related disciplines − constitutes a privileged forum of development and exchange of ideas, directly linked to the social and political life of the country. This explains the impact of the Hellenic Association of Political Science in the years 19751980, the role of the Panteios School (and later of Panteion University) or of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the National University of Athens. Moreover, the institutions of the social sciences provide the state with political and administrative executives (political personnel, leaders of the large public organizations, political advisers). The Panteion University has also provided Presidents of the Republic, prime ministers and other highranking personnel. The development of the phenomenon of the telemedia has led political science to come up against the live daily events, without, however, giving up its traditional presence in the Press. Finally, the integration of the country in the international system (NATO, the Council of Europe, OECD) and, since January 1, 1981, in the European Union, in conjunction with the new world order that arose with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, created a significant demand for specialists in European affairs, as well as in the affairs of the countries of southeast Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Near East, and, in general, in international relations, strategic studies, foreign policy, the European institutions and the broader international issues. The new role that the state has been called upon to play on the national and international scene has raised the question of its reform. The demand for specialists in the political and administrative institutions as well as in state

Political Science in Greece

217

policies would have effects on the development of a series of disciplines of the social sciences, of which the political phenomenon is a basic parameter. The establishment of the National School of Public Administration is an indication of this new reality. Despite this opening of the state, the civil services, and the private sector to the social sciences, access to jobs for political science graduates remains a problem. They face, among other things, the irrational aspects of a state, which the political class refuses to abandon or, in the best case, is not in a position to confront. Add to that the plethora of graduates, given that the graduates from abroad and from the private institutions are added to this number. Finally, we cannot ignore the phenomenon of the rejection of work that the transition to the technological age has produced and which raises the general question of re-evaluating the place of work in the economic process26. Nevertheless, over the last few years, the demand for highly qualified political scientists has increased: in the audiovisual communication media, the survey companies, public and private education, particularly at the secondary level27, in continuing education, research centres, offices of research and counselling, special (public and private) services on European affairs, local and regional self-administration. It is obvious that we find ourselves before a demand that requires increasingly complex knowledge, confirming a significant turning point in the aspect of society and the State and, of course, of the country in the new technological order. It is a turning point which still faces the dominant system and the resistance of the reigning, chiefly political and intellectual, class of the country.

6 European and International Co-operation The participation of Hellenic political science in the international cooperation presents a positive picture. Nevertheless, according to a general trend that is characteristic of Greek society, the individual action in the international arena is stronger by far than that of the institutions, including the Hellenic Political Science Association. Hellenism, through its diaspora and the mobility that distinguishes it, takes an active part in the international process of production and distribution of modern knowledge in political science: Roy Macridis, Nikos Poulantzas, Cornelius Castoriadis and others are a few representative examples, while, 26 For an approach in this direction, see related text by Contogeorgis (1997b). 27 Where Introduction to Politics, Elements of Democracy, the History of Ideas, and other political sciences courses are taught.

218

Georges Contogeorgis

particularly in the United States, the Greek university community is among the most active. This diaspora, apart from its presence in host countries, very often has an active role in Greek scientific and intellectual life, so that it often occupies a not at all insignificant place in research and the development of issues relating to Greek political life and history. Concerning the institutions that are active within the modern Greek state, there is a relatively interesting, though somewhat intermittent, presence in European and international events. HPSA is member of IPSA and it maintains relationships with a number of international associations. The university institutions (e.g. departments) and those of research (institutes, research centres) appear much more active on the international level. Their initiatives provide quite a rich and constructive result for the social sciences. Finally, Greece participates in a number of European scientific institutions, such as the European University Institute of Florence, the College of Bruges and the Institute of Public Administration of Maastricht. Another dimension which is used as a vehicle for international co-operation is the bilateral agreements of exchange and research that the Greek state signs with other countries. E-mail addresses of the principal university and research foundations: University of Athens Economic University of Athens Panteion University University of Thessaloniki University of Macedonia University of Thrace University of Crete University of Ioannina University of the Aegean Ministry of Education National Documentation Centre ELIAMEP IPA

http://www.uoa.gr/ http://www.aueb.gr http://www.panteion.gr http://www.auth.gr/ http://www.it.uom.gr/ http://www.duth.gr/ http://www.uch.gr/ http://feidias.cc.uoi.gr:9030/ http://www.aegean.gr/ http://www.ypepth.gr/ http://www.ekt.org.gr/ [email protected] [email protected]

The participation of Greece, and in particular of Greek political science, in European exchange programmes, presents a number of distinctive features that are worthy of mention. There is a disproportion that is favourable to the Greek students. This imbalance is due, for the most part, to the limited knowledge of the Greek language in Europe and also to the proficiency of Greek students in foreign languages. It is true that this problem is partially compensated by the fact that the European students that come to Greece often choose to combine their studies with the carrying out of part of their research programme. At the level of teaching mobility, a larger balance is maintained.

Political Science in Greece

219

7 Qualitative Analysis and Distinctive Features of Greek Political Science 7.1

The Long Road of Transition to the Modern Era. Difficult Harmonization

The scientific approach to the political phenomenon in the Hellenic world is of considerable interest which touches on the core of European development. This is because, on the one hand, its affiliation with the Greek classics has been uninterrupted throughout history, and has been accompanied by a continuous production of political works until the end of the Hellenic cosmosystem in the 19th century; on the other hand, because this relationship of the Greek societies with political thinking is linked to the fact that they were indissolubly interwoven with the causal basis of politics, that is, their constant anthropocentric nature. Despite this, during the last period of life as societies of cities (15th-19th century), their intellectual life came up against significant hardships due to the turbulence caused by its violent meeting with Asian and European despotism and the new ethnocentric dynamic of the societies resulting from Europe’s exit from feudalism. The shock of the Ottoman occupation did not, however, prevent Hellenism from restructuring itself. The Great (university) School of the “Nation” took the place of the state university of Constantinople, which was the model for the creation of the western European universities. The (secular) educational system of the cities was called upon to fill the vacuum in the whole Greek vital area. During the last period of the Ottomanocracy, until the 19th century, the project of Hellenic societies would continue to be focused on the reconstitution of the ecumenical cosmopolis, with the city as a foundation and not on the creation of a nation- state. The failure of this project and the creation of a marginal state of the national type produced, at first, a dichotomy between the employing of politics as a phenomenon that can be approached either as power, force or global freedom and in its definition of tautology of the state (i.e., as power or as simple force). The option of the concept of politics to the conditions of the proto-anthropocentric nation-state did not end this rivalry. It simply transformed the object of rivalry, which was focused around the question of incompatibility of the modern political system with the political development of society and, furthermore, of the interpretation of this phenomenon. The question of blame − the system or the society − has not ceased to torment Greek political thought until today. The great demand for politics on behalf of the social body in the context of the state-nation certainly did not prevent the equating of the political phenomenon with the state nor the inevitable subjugation of the sciences of poli-

220

Georges Contogeorgis

tics to the sciences of the state-nation (in public law, in ethnostatocentric history and economics). Thus, despite the strong presence of the citizen in political life, the social sciences and, frequently, the realities of the formal political system, accepted as nearly self-evident the relative doctrine of “modernism.” In this context, it was natural to link the return of political science in Greece with the new dominant views: that in other words its object is the tautological equivalent of the state and, in the best case, of the political power. Despite this, the legacies of the Hellenic world are largely responsible for the distinctiveness of the relationship between society and politics, the functions of the political system but also the science of politics in Greece. Contemporary Greek political science is characterized by a high level of autonomy in the fields of teaching and research. A university (the Panteion) devoted essentially to the sciences of politics, four other departments and several sections of political science, added to which are a series of departments and sections affiliated with political science, as well as research institutions, giving the overall picture of undeniable pre-eminence in the domain of the social sciences. It is also undeniable that this reality in Greece increasingly finds its relative parallel in the development of the contemporary world. Indeed, in recent years a substantial widening of the field of politics is observed mainly in European societies, as well as a tendency to un-identify the concept of the socalled public space by the state. This introduced a questioning relative to the embodiment of the political system by the state, and further, the concept that has the political power of the state expressing the nation and the general interest. There is the prospect of a reconsideration of this position, which suggests the idea of a clear distinction between the concept of the political system and the concept of the state and further of the project for a state that will serve and not embody the political system. This distinction could create the conditions for a change of roles in the context of the political process and particularly of the political function of the social body. In this context, the “people” acquire a political dimension that it takes from the “nation” as it is transformed from a private society into a demos, i.e., an institutional agent of the political system. The political integration of the citizen indeed undermines the principle “one nation, one state, one political system (unified or not).” This principle, which exhausted its role in the transition from the despotic to the anthropocentric cosmosystem, was used at the same time as the starting point or legitimizing basis for significant political “deformations” (nationalism, totalitarianism, political coercion). The loss nowadays of a large portion of the initial dynamism must be attributed precisely to the fact that it finds itself facing the development of the social body in terms of view of freedom. This remark certainly reveals the doubtful character of certain

Political Science in Greece

221

hypotheses which are still considered fundamental, such as that of the cultural or the political minority. The difference between the formal and the real political system, which appeared clearly at the end of the 20th century, raises a question vaster than that of cultural or political pluralism. In this context, contemporary political science considers that the problem of the deficit of representation can be solved with the accreditation of the civil society (the concept of governance) in the political power in a context of relationships of forces. The social body, however, is in no way regarded as a mandatory and, therefore, as an institution within the political system. From then on, the basic question is that of transition from the dilemma of minority or sovereignty in the concept of political autonomy of the social body and, by extension, with a multisystematic construction of the State, which would be closely associated with the reconsideration of the bases that govern the relationship between society and politics. For Greek society, this evolution can be interpreted as the beginning of the end of a parenthesis, which was imposed on the political praxis and was effectively served by political science as the consequence of the inevitable, from a certain moment and on, harmonization of its political system with the ethnocentric system. This harmonization, however, which was qualified as deviating in comparison to the European “rule,” owing to the fact that from the start (from the first 20 years of the 19th century), it directly introduced principles such as: universal suffrage, the system of the “post-class” and, consequently, “post-ideological” parties, political individuality which entails a political behaviour motivated by the status of mandatory, the existence of a broad political space, diffused in the social body and minimally compatible with the identification of the “public” with the state.

7.2

Developments in Contemporary Political Science

As far as the body of teachers and researchers in the social sciences is concerned, one notices considerable development before the end of the Cold War. This is reflected in the increase in the number of members of the teaching and research staff since the reform of 1982, which released the university dynamic to this day. To return to the example of the Panteion University: whereas in 1982 there were 36 teachers with the status of professor − and really only one department with two directions − in 1990 the number of professors of all four ranks was 178 − with eight departments and numerous sections − not counting the assistants. Today, there are 218 professors and 10 departments. The example of the Panteion is largely representative of the whole of the Greek university system and of Greek research.

222

Georges Contogeorgis

The average age of the teachers and the researchers has decreased appreciably. The average age was almost 60 years in 1982, while in l996 it averaged around 45, with an upward trend in the last few years. This shows that the social sciences, especially its political science branches, are undeniably in full dynamic evolution. At the same time, a new generation of political scientists, which represents a remarkable scientific potential, is already active in the university and in research. All of the members of the teaching and research staff are proficient in at least one foreign language, while those who command at least two foreign languages come to more than 72 percent. It is noted that 86 percent of the Greek teachers and researchers have completed a part or the whole of their postgraduate studies (DEA, Master, PhD) in one or more foreign universities (mainly European or American). Many of them served as instructors or as researchers in foreign institutions before returning to Greece, or they maintain close scientific communications (instructional or research) with institutions abroad. International mobility is encouraged to a certain extent by university law. Every teacher is entitled to a six-month sabbatical every three years (or one year every six years) of service, while salaries are nearly doubled for those who choose a research residency at a university abroad. Within the halls of Greek political science one observes a tendency to form intra-disciplinary or branch “families.” This testifies to the existence of a relative potential for specialization which responds to the social demand. We are referring to the “families” of electoral sociology and the sociology of public opinion, political life, the media, comparative policy, political theory, political institutions, state policies, political forces (political parties, interest groups, social movements), political culture, public administration, local and regional self-administration, international studies (international organizations and international relations, strategic studies, European, Balkan, Arab studies), methodology and epistemology, political economy, political history. The political system of the modern Greek state is, of course, the privileged field of political research. However, with the notable exception of political ideas, the past that refers to the period of the Hellenic cosmosystem did not particularly attract its attention. The period from antiquity to the Ottoman period was left essentially to the historians, to the philologists, and secondarily to other disciplines. Modern political science developed in the final analysis as the science of the state-nation. This, moreover, largely explains the absolute view of the history of Hellenism through a narrow ethnocentric prism. It is sufficient to note that the first non-ethnocentric systematic approach to the Hellenic political foundations (of the system of cities) of the Ottoman period would come to light only in 1982, while the global approach to Hellenism from the point of view of cosmosystemic theory would appear ten years later.

Political Science in Greece

223

The part of the political sciences which deals with political events beyond Greece is not insignificant: It deals particularly with the movement of ideas from the Western European Renaissance until the modern period, with the social and political case of other countries (for example the countries of southeastern Europe, the Near East), and particularly with the study of the political system of the countries of the European Union. In this respect, it is important to emphasize the significance of the phenomenon of the translation into Greek of a large number of works regarding the social sciences and, in this case, political science. This phenomenon, largely supported by the system of free distribution of textbooks to the students, makes the bibliography on the subject rich as well as balanced.

7.3

Towards a New “Paradigm” of Political Science

The dynamic return of political science in a country like Greece, which quite painfully lives the reality of the restricted institutional space of politics in the environment of the state-nation, makes the raising of questions as to the concept as well as to the method of approach to the political phenomenon almost self-evident. The success of another “paradigm,” beside the dominant “paradigm” of modernity, which projects itself as a unique laboratory of political science that is not subject to comparison with the past, is a natural consequence. This modern “paradigm,” which is served by contemporary political science, perceives the political phenomenon as a function of its organisational or structural expression within the framework of the state-nation in the protoanthropocentric phase. Political science has power as an object because only power and the relations of force that are expressed around it are considered to be able to produce policy. As such, any other structural approach to the political phenomenon that does not identify the political system with the state is inconceivable. Moreover, it considers that statocentrism is the only form of structuring the world cosmosystem. This approach itself does not distinguish between political science, whose object is the political system, its structure and functions, and the sciences of politics, which refer to the action of the political system (political economy, international relations). The new “paradigm” reproaches modern political science for possessing a limited gnosiological and methodological depth, shallow comparative perspective and a committed logic so that it sets the modern age as a universal model. The ethnocentric approach to the political phenomenon entirely distorts the historical horizon, while at the same time it considers the process of the emergence of the nation and of the proto-anthropocentric society in Western Europe as a measure of judgment and causality of universal value. On the contrary, this new “paradigm” chooses to conceptualize the phenom-

224

Georges Contogeorgis

ena (e.g., politics, democracy, representation, freedom) and then submits the historical and modern cases to scientific control. This point of view sees the current stage of the anthropocentric cosmosystem not any longer as a model of reference and integration, but as a simple historical incident of the anthropocentric cosmosystem, which we are called upon to approach in terms of comparative analogy. Compared with the whole anthropocentric cosmosystem our era resembles typologically the first statocentric period of the city. The Hellenic or anthropocentric cosmosystem on a small scale also demonstrates, however, apart from its integration within the context of the state, its post-statocentric or ecumenical phase, which is recognized politically at the level of the cosmopolis. The significance of this finding is multi-faceted because it enriches the conceptual approach to the typology of political systems and the organization of the world. It also informs us that the political systems of the city, such as, for example, democracy, were not recorded, as believed, in a restricted period of statocentric antiquity (5th-4th centuries) but were, in fact, a constant in all of the phases of the Hellenic cosmosystem, in the context of the city until the turn of the 20th century. The challenge which the comparative analogical method addresses to modern political science to disassociate itself from the “synchronic” argument and to invest in the typological space of the whole anthropocentric cosmosystem, essentially reintroduces the question of redefinition of the concept of politics and, by extension, all the concepts or phenomena ascribed to its object. Thus, democracy for modern theory is the political system which modern societies are experiencing. However, the subjection of the modern political system to the control of the democratic principle classifies it not as a democratic political system, but as a pre-democratic, and in fact a pre-representational, system. In this case, the question is not focused on the feasibility of the Athenian democracy nowadays, but of the democratic principle. As far as politics is concerned, this approach rejects the established approach to politics, which links the concept with its nature and not with its structural type in the era of the anthropocentric proto-genesis. It accepts that the political phenomenon as such is intrinsic in society and not power, force, or coercion. The projection of the hypothesis that the political phenomenon does not manifest a unique structural “face” in the whole cosmosystemic process dramatically broadens the gnoseological basis and the space of reference of political science. In terms of perspective, the question concerns the conditions under which the social body can transcend its constitution in terms of power or, put another way, in terms of private society, which reflects the actual phase of modernity. To what degree, therefore, can we anticipate the alternative possibility of the transition to a system of direct representation and, furthermore, “political

Political Science in Greece

225

society,” which defines the anthropocentric integration? We are obviously referring to democracy, that is, to the political system whose distinguishing feature is the whole (individual, social, and political) freedom is recognized by the diffusion of politics to the society or, more correctly, by the vesting of the social body with the status of political system instead of the state. The fundamental hypothesis of the cosmosystemic “paradigm” announces a radical reconsideration of the whole of the conceptual and methodological arsenal of modernity, and at the same time, the determinative broadening of the space of political science. In this context, modern political science is charged with the duty of distancing itself from this view of modernity so that it can rethink the political phenomenon, not simply on the basis of an intra-systemic critical review of the political praxis, but in terms of the universal character of its manifestations.

8 Conclusions With the definite attachment of Greek society to the conditions of the modern cosmosystem, Greek political science was bound inevitably to adapt to the epistemological concessions of the new ethnocentric order. The features of this adaptation, as significant as they were, do not refute the fact that the investigation of the political phenomenon in Greece was recorded, as everywhere else, as the responsibility of related scientific branches (law, history, etc.). A science of politics had no reason to exist in the proto-anthropocentric stage of the state-nation. Having been absorbed by the public space or at least by state political power, the political phenomenon − and subsequently the political system − could not hope for a delimitation of its space so that it would cover the area of a distinct discipline. Moreover, to the degree that the social body possessed neither the necessary political maturity nor the status of political partner the political praxis could introduce only indirectly a hypothesis of society and, as such, it was rather impossible to claim its own scientific space.28 Therefore, the delay of political science and the relatively limited progress it has made nowadays is evaluated in comparison to the precedent of the Hellenic or the small-scale anthropocentric cosmosystem,

28 It is sufficient to remember that until the end of the 1980s the local selfgovernment belonged to administrative law, with the argument that it did not produce politics! (see Contogeorgis 1985: 187). This approach, which simply reproduces the reality of the central system, must be compared with the Hellenic cosmosystem in its democratic (but also the “post-democratic”) phase, a component part of which is the political autonomy of the individual and of the social body.

226

Georges Contogeorgis

and not with the realities of our era, with which they are clearly in harmony and which it accurately renders. On the other hand, the progressive emancipation of political science, which started only a few years ago, did not make it feasible to promote a creative dialogue about its major options as far as the concept of the political phenomenon and its object are concerned, or the most expedient method which would allow it to go beyond the environment that gave birth to it. That is why the redefinition of the concept and the method becomes a major priority for political science at the beginning of the 21st century. It is clear that the science of politics is the only one of the social sciences that persists in defining its object based on the way it is structured in our era (as a tautology of power or state) and not by virtue of its nature as the same order of phenomenon of which the structural manifestations are connected to the type and the developmental expansion of the analogous (despotic or anthropocentric) cosmosystem. This remark has more than just rhetorical value. As a working hypothesis it allows, on one hand, the investigation of the political phenomenon within the whole historical context, and, on the other hand, the search for the deeper significance of recent developments that the transition to the technological age signals. Therefore, the task of political science no longer focuses on an apologetic function in favour of some form of power or other, or to whatever policies lie behind its short-term options. Political science is called upon, mainly, to rise above the “short history” and to bring its step in harmony with the “rule” that issues from the long history recommended by the cosmosystemic approach. This confirms the view that political science, much more than any other branch of the social sciences, will not acquire an upward indicator of reliability if it does not first acquire a universal conceptual object. In the final analysis, the discussion about the object of political science refers to a fundamental problem of identity. Generally, political science in Greece presents one of the highest levels of development in Europe. It is historically in the vanguard of institutionalization of political science. The first efforts date back to 1828 and to the second half of the 19th century – long before the creation of the École des Sciences Politiques de Paris and the London School of Economics – whereas the Panteios School of Political Sciences numbers among the first schools of its kind (it was created in 1927). The first political sciences society in Greece appeared in 1916, and also publishes a review of social and political sciences. Later, when in 1949 UNESCO urged the European countries to establish national political science societies, Greece was among the first. The Hellenic Political Science Association was already established in 1955. Finally, the Departments of Political Science in Greece are among the first in Europe to be emancipated from the sciences of the state and to become institutionally autonomous. From their creation, the curricula of the political

Political Science in Greece

227

science departments included only political science stricto sensu and its related branches from the first to the last semester. The disproportionately large – in relation to the population of the country – production of works of political science, combined with the translations of foreign works into the Greek language, confirm the picture of a society with a high level of individual politicization and subsequently explain the significant demand for political science. The difficulties concerning the problem of the professional status of graduates does not refute this finding.

References Contogeorgis, George (1982): Social Dynamics and Political Autonomy. The Greek “Cities” in the Ottomanocracy, Athens: Nea Synora. Contogeorgis, George (1985): Political System and Politics, Athens: Polytypo. Contogeorgis, George (1992): History of Greece, Paris: Hatier. Contogeorgis, George (1995): “La politique locale entre la tendance centralisatrice de l’Etat grec et la dynamique communautaire: administration ou autonomie locale (et régionale)?” Pôle Sud 3: 88-102. Contogeorgis, George (1996): Mass Communication and Democracy. In Laocratis Vassis (ed.), Medias and Culture, Athens: Entelecheia: 251-263. Contogeorgis, George (1997a): The Unity of Hellenic Humanism. From Byzantium to Modern-Greek Humanism. In Dedication to Antonis Antonakopoulos, Athens: Panteion University Press: 83-110. Contogeorgis, George (1997b): “Foreword,” in Guy Haarscher / Mario Teló: After Communism, Athens: Papazissis (Greek translation): 20-23. Contogeorgis, George (2001): “Samuel Huntington et le choc des civilisations. Civilisation religieuse ou cosmosystème?” Pôle Sud 14: 107-127. Contogeorgis, George (2003a): Citizenship and City. Concept and Typology of Citizenship, Athens: Papazissis. Contogeorgis, George (2003b): The Authoritarian Phenomenon. Interpretative Approaches, Athens: Papazissis. Contogeorgis, George (2003c): “Toward a Cosmosystemic Approach to the Historic Process,” in: Dimitris Koutras (ed.): Philosophy of History and Culture, Αthens: Papazissis: 71-90. Contogeorgis, George (2004): “La démocratie comme liberté”, in: Dominique Damamme (ed.): La démocratie en Europe, Paris: L’Harmattan: 9-20. Diamantouros, Nikiphoros / Michalis Spourdalakis (1991): “Political Science in Greece”, European Journal of Political Research 20: 375-387. Easton, David / John G. Gunnell / Michael B. Stein (ed.) (1995): Regime and Discipline. Democrac and the Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. EKKE (National Centre for Social Research) (1998): On the Opening of the Social Sciences, Athens: Edition EKKE. Flogaitis, Spyros (1982): Fundamental Concepts of Administrative Organization, Athens: Sakkoulas (in Greek).

228

Georges Contogeorgis

Goodin, Robert E. / Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) (1996): A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haarscher, Guy / Mario Teló (1997): After Communism, Athens: Papazissis (Greek translation). Hatzistratis, Dimitri (1994): La Nouvelle importance du paysage audiovisuel sur le jeu politique grec. Le cas des elections legislatives du 10 octobre, 1993, Athens: Panteion University Press. Spourdalakis, Michalis (1994): “The Study of Political Parties in Greece”, European Journal of Political Research 25: 499-518. Tsinisizelis, Michalis (1993): “Recent Political Science Writing in Greece,” European Journal of Political Research 23: 483-501. UNESCO (1950): Contemporary Political Science, Paris: UNESCO: 740.

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland Ólafur Th. Hardarson

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

University System in General The system of higher education in Iceland has undergone major changes in the last decade. The number of enrolled students has more than doubled since 1994, and the number of postgraduate students has increased nearly five-fold. Various upper secondary schools have been upgraded and new private schools have been established. The private schools charge fees, while most of their teaching expenses are publicly funded: the public contribution for teaching each student is the same for the public and the private institutions. At present, there are eight higher educational institutions in Iceland, while only the University of Iceland offers undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and research activities in a wide area of disciplines. The University of Iceland was founded in 1911 and has presently around 9,000 registered students in 11 faculties: Social Sciences (2,500 students), Humanities (2,000), Economics and Business Administration (1,200), Natural Sciences (1,000), Engineering (800), Law (600), Nursing (600), Medicine (500), Pharmacy (150), Theology (150), and Dentistry (70). The University of Iceland has 41 research institutions under its auspices and offers more than 160 degree programmes, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including 19 PhD programmes. Other public higher education institutions include the Iceland University of Education (upgraded from a Teachers’ College in 1971, 2,300 students) and the University of Akureyri (founded 1988, 1,500 students in six faculties: Social Sciences and Law, Health Sciences, Management Studies, Natural Resource Sciences, Teacher Education, and Information Technology). Besides, two public institutions come under the Ministry of Agriculture (instead of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture), the Agricultural University of Iceland (upgraded 2005, 150 students) and Hólar University College (upgraded 2003, 100 students).

230

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

Currently there are three private higher education institutions. Reykjavík University (established 1998) has 2,500 students in four schools: School of Science and Technology, School of Health and Education, School of Business, and School of Law. Bifröst School of Business (upgraded 1987) has 400 students in three faculties: Business, Law, and Social Sciences. Iceland Academy of the Arts (founded in 1998) has 400 students in four departments: Design and Architecture, Fine Arts, Drama, and Music.

Political Science in Particular In 1970, political science was established as a separate academic discipline at the University of Iceland, when a new department of social sciences was founded, offering a BA degree with political science and sociology as majors, and anthropology as a minor. The permanent teaching staff consisted at first of one lecturer in each of the three disciplines. Several foreign academics served as temporary lecturers during the first years, and part-time teachers have always played an important part in teaching. The first lecturer – Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson (President of Iceland since 1996) – became the first professor of political science in Iceland in 1973. He had also been the first Icelander to obtain a PhD degree in political science (from Manchester, England 1970). In 1976, the department of social sciences was merged with three disciplines from the Faculty of Humanities into a new Faculty of Social Sciences. Six disciplines – political science, sociology, anthropology, psychology, education, and library science, functioned as departments within the new faculty, even though formal departments were first established within the Faculty of Social Sciences in 1996. In 1976, the new faculty had 11 full-time positions (two in political science), and a total of around 300 students. For the next decade, students in political science were few, and the Department had only two full-time teaching positions. Quite a few courses were jointly utilized by students of several disciplines, and a strong emphasis was placed on methodology and statistics, taught in courses common for the whole Faculty of Social Sciences. From the start, there was a strong sociological, comparative, and historical emphasis on the teaching of political science, and research was strongly focused on various aspects of Icelandic politics, which was largely unexplored territory. In the late 1980s, the number of teachers and students of political science started to grow. This created possibilities for a broader scope of teaching and research, and an increasing emphasis was put on public administration and public policy, local government, international relations, and political philosophy. Graduate studies in political science have gained momentum in the last decade. The Department of Political Science now offers two Master degrees

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

231

based on comprehensive course-work and a dissertation: an MPA in public administration and an MA in international affairs. Besides, students can obtain a more research oriented MA degree in political science. The first PhD degree in political science from the University of Iceland was awarded in 2001. In 2006, the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland consisted of seven full-time teachers, the director of the Institute of Public Administration and Politics, and 550 students.

1.2

Current Developments – the Bologna Process

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture supervises the implementation of the Bologna Process in Iceland. The Icelandic degree system has for a long time been largely consistent with the aims of the Bologna Declaration. However, some candidatus programmes have consisted of single-cycle studies of 4-6 years, but in the last few years several of these have been restructured into two-circle structure (3+2), for instance in law and business administration. In almost all cases university studies are divided into credit units, 30 credits corresponding to a full year of academic studies (an equivalent of 60 ETCS). Thus, it is relatively simple to transfer credits between different disciplines and universities, subject to the approval of the receiving faculty or department. In order to improve international transparency and facilitate recognition of qualifications, the European Diploma Supplement was introduced in 2005. From the beginning, undergraduate studies in political science have been structured within a three-year BA degree (90 credits). A Master degree in political science (first introduced in the late 1990s) consists of 60 credits, and a PhD of at least 90 credits.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

In 2005/06, there were seven full-time teaching positions at the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland (www.hi.is): four professors, two docents, and one lecturer. Four of those obtained their PhDs in Britain (University of Essex, London School of Economics and Political Science, Oxford University), and three in the United States (University of Connecticut, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Rochester).

232

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

The Department employs a full-time director of its Institute of Public Administration and Politics (with an MPA from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard), and around 30 part-time teachers. Secretarial services are provided by the staff of the Faculty of Social Sciences. The Department is a partner to the Social Science Research Institute, jointly operated by all departments in the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the University of Iceland’s Institute for International Affairs, and has representatives on the board of both institutions. In 2006, 550 students were registered at the Department of Political Science. Around half of those were undergraduate students, the others postgraduate students, including eight PhD students. The average number of BA graduations in the last few years has been around 40 annually. A total of 38 students have graduated from the Department with an MA or MPA degree, most of them in the last four years. One student has obtained a PhD degree from the Department. In 2005, the Bifröst School of Business (www.bifrost.is) started a new three-year BA programme of Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). The School plans to offer some postgraduate programmes in the field of political science, including an MPA programme and an MA in European Studies. The School’s full-time academic staff includes three political scientists, including one professor with a PhD degree from Gothenburg, Sweden. In 2003, a new Faculty of Social Sciences and Law was started at the University of Akureyri (www.unak.is). The faculty offers some undergraduate courses in the field of political science, but no degrees in the discipline. The staff includes one political scientist, who is a lecturer in media studies.

2.2

Degree Systems and Admission Regulations

Undergraduate studies in political science at the University of Iceland consist of a three-year BA degree (either with all 90 credits in political science, or with a major of 60 credits in political science and a minor of 30 credits in another discipline). Students graduating from other departments are also able to finish a minor in political science (30 credits) as part of their BA degree. From 1986-2005 a total of 498 students graduated with a BA degree from the Department of Political Science – 70 percent of these with 90 credits in political science, 30 percent with a major of 60 credits. In addition, a total of 30 students graduated from other departments with political science as minor. Marks are usually given on the basis of written examination, often along with some course papers. Marks are on a scale from 0 to 10, where 5 is required for pass, 7.25 for first class, and 9 for a mark of distinction. The usual entry requirement in the University of Iceland is matriculation examination from a grammar school or an equivalent degree, which students

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

233

in Iceland normally complete at the age of 20. While a contract between the University and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture specifies the number of students paid for by the government, all qualified applicants have been admitted in most departments, including the Department of Political Science. In the last few years, the student population of the University has exceeded the number of students paid for, and currently the rules of entry are under review. Less than half of the students admitted to the BA programme in the Department of Political Science actually manage to graduate with a BA degree. The University of Iceland and other public universities are not allowed to charge tuition fees, but students pay an annual registration fee decided by law, currently €523 (45,000 krónur). The private schools have unrestricted authority to charge fees. Tuition fees for the PPE programme at the Bifröst School of Business amount to €4,767 annually (410,000 krónur). In addition, the private schools obtain the same public contribution for each student as the public universities. All students can obtain favourable students loans for registration and tuition fees from the Student Government Loan Fund, in addition to loans for their maintenance. Course-based postgraduate studies were first introduced at the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland in 1997 with a Master programme in public administration. Currently, two course-based programmes are on offer, MPA in public policy and administration, and MA in international affairs (started in 2005). The MPA is a two-year programme of 60 credits: 30 credits in courses, 15 credits for a dissertation, and 15 credits for on-the-job training. The MA programme in international affairs consists of 45 credits in courses, and 15 credits for a dissertation. Students can also obtain an MA degree in political science by writing a dissertation of 15-30 credits together with 30-45 credits in MA courses in political science or other disciplines, individually selected for each candidate. In 2005/06, around 130 students were registered for the MPA, around 40 for the MA in international affairs, and seven for the MA in political science. Postgraduate students can also finish a diploma of 15 credits in public administration or international affairs. These credits can later be accepted as a part of a Master degree. A thesis of 90 credits (three years of study) is required for a PhD degree from the Department of Political Science. If a student’s prior knowledge in the relevant field of study is considered insufficient, the student may be required to finish up to 30 additional credits in specified courses. Currently there are eight doctoral students at the Department. The entry requirement for Master studies at the Department is a BA degree (first class). Only the MA programme in political science is more or less exclusively for students with a first degree in politics. Registration fees for postgraduate students at the University of Iceland are the same as for undergraduates, €523 annually. Tuition fees for Master

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

234

programmes at the Bifröst School of Business are currently €7,581 (652,000 krónur).

2.3

Areas of Teaching

From the beginning, the major aim of undergraduate teaching in political science at the University of Iceland was two-fold: (1) to run a fairly standard undergraduate programme in political science, which would be of sufficient quality and substance for graduates of the Department to have a fair chance of being accepted as graduate students in the best universities of the world; (2) to cover the essentials of Icelandic politics and the Icelandic political system. The Department has been successful on both scores. There are almost 40 undergraduate courses on offer in the Department of Political Science. Several of those are however offered bi-annually or irregularly. Individual courses are small, usually 3-4 credits. Students can take elective courses in other departments. Graduates from the Department are required to finish a relative large proportion of mandatory courses (70 out of 90 credits, or 56 out of 60 credits). Most of these courses include emphasis on Icelandic politics and society. Among subjects covered in mandatory courses are introduction to political science, sociology and economics, international relations, public policy and administration, comparative politics, public opinion, electoral behaviour and political parties, European integration, and political theory. A strong emphasis is placed on statistics and research methodology: five courses in this field – specially organized for political science students – are mandatory (a total of 17 credits). Most textbooks are in English. Most individual courses in the postgraduate programmes are also small (3-4 credits). The organization of the MPA programme is based on criteria spelled out by the American NAPSAA (National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration), as well as European traditions in public administration. A strong emphasis is put on the Icelandic context, e.g., Icelandic legislation, organization and political traditions in public administration and policy-making. Around 20 courses are on offer for the MPA students. Mandatory courses include: Introduction to Microeconomics and the Role of Government, Administrative Law for Public Executives, Public Administration, Public Management, and The Tools of Government. Elective courses include: Public Human Resource Management, Cultural Management, Health Care Administration and the Environment of the Health Care System, Leadership in Public Organizations, Public Relations, Local Governance, Management of Voluntary Organizations, Strategic Planning for Public Organizations, Public Procurement, and Practical Statistics.

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

235

The MA programme in international affairs is organized along the lines most common in Britain and the USA – with an additional strong emphasis on Iceland. Students can choose between nine areas of specialization: Cultural Diversity, European Studies, Small State Studies, Public Administration, International Business, Contemporary History, International Law and Human Rights, International Law and Armed Conflict, and Development Studies. Around 20 courses are on offer. Mandatory courses include: International Cooperation and Icelandic Position in the International System, Theories of International Relations, Practical Statistics, Icelandic Foreign Policy, Democracy, Sovereignty and the Nation-state in the 21st Century, The Role and Policy-making of International Institutions, and Management, Organization and Diplomacy in International Relations. Elective courses include: Difference Across Cultures, The Integration of Politics and Religion, European Integration, The New European Union, Europeanization: The Influence of the European Integration on the Politics and Administrations of the EU and EEA members, Small States in the International System: Challenges and Opportunities, The Nordic States: International Relations, Politics and Public Administration, and Small States in Europe: Vulnerability, Status and Influence.

2.4

Research

Icelandic politics has always been the major focus of research in the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland. This is a natural choice. The University of Iceland has two major aims concerning research: first, to carry out research of international standard which can serve as a contribution to general scientific knowledge; and second, to specifically further knowledge about Iceland and Icelandic society. When the Department started in 1970, scientific knowledge about the Icelandic political system was largely non-existent. It seemed fair that a department paid for by Icelandic taxpayers should further knowledge on Iceland in particular. Besides it seemed sensible for a small department to concentrate on the only subject it could almost certainly do better than anybody else, namely research on Icelandic politics. In the last 30 years, Icelandic political scientists have managed to study and publish scholarly works on all the most significant aspects of the Icelandic political system. The most important works consist of several PhD theses (written in English, some published), books and book chapters in English and Icelandic, and articles both in Icelandic and English in professional journals. Emphasis on publications in international refereed journals has increased within the Department in the last decade. The staff of the Department has also increasingly taken part in international research projects,

236

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

for instance the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), and a European Network of Excellence in E-Democracy. Active participation in the international political science community is the only way to secure that the research carried out at the Department on Icelandic politics is up to international standards. But it is also very important for the Department to nurture its domestic roots. Besides writing on politics in Icelandic for an Icelandic audience and giving lectures to meetings of various associations – including the political parties – staff members at the Department have been very visible in the Icelandic media, commenting on their research subjects as well as more general current affairs related to their specialities. Increasingly, the advice of Department staff is sought by committees and institutions dealing with public policy. Currently, one of the professors of the Department – along with his colleagues from the Faculty of Law – serves as a specialist advisor to an allparty committee preparing amendments to the Icelandic constitution. The University of Iceland operates a system of incentives in order to increase research, especially publications in high-quality journals observed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Thomson Scientific). All professors, docents, and lecturers are annually awarded points for their research and publications, and they receive generous bonus payments according to their productivity. They are also entitled to a sabbatical for one term every seventh term, or for one year every seventh year. Usually they spend this time as visiting scholars at universities in England, Scandinavia, or the United States. Both of these mechanisms have proved efficient in furthering research and publications. The average score of points awarded for publications to staff members of the Department is high, both compared to other departments in the Faculty of Social Sciences, and to other faculties of the University of Iceland. Among research projects currently worked on at the Department are the following: research on small states and European integration; the relationship between democracy and public administration; the impact of property rights on the use of resources; comparative politics, game theory and methodology; election studies, democracy and public opinion; the impact of ministers’ political assistants on political leadership; and the development of democracy in Iceland from the late 19th century to the present. The Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland is connected to three research institutions. In 2003, the Department founded the Institute of Public Administration and Politics in cooperation with the University Hospital and Reykjavík City, which contributes around half of the costs needed for running the Institute. The major aim of the Institute is to strengthen teaching and research in the field of public administration and policy-making, both at the national and the local level. Besides, the Institute aims at creating a forum for discussion among scholars, politicians, public servants, and other interested parties. The

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

237

Institute has played a major role in the development of the two Master programmes in political science and initiated cooperation with actors outside the university. Various public institutions have significantly contributed to the MPA programme, for instance by providing their specialists as lecturers in individual courses – and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has contributed in a similar manner to the new programme in international affairs. The Institute of Public Administration and Politics has also sponsored numerous lectures and seminars in cooperation with various Icelandic institutions and foreign embassies in Reykjavík, both with Icelandic and foreign academics and specialists. The next major task of the Institute is to strengthen research. In 2005, a new web-based journal was established, Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla – veftímarit (Politics and Public Administration – a web journal – www.Stjornmalogstjornsysla.is). Articles from the refereed part of the journal will be published annually in a book. The University of Iceland’s Institute for International Affairs was reorganized in 2002. It is jointly operated by the University, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Federation of Icelandic Industries, and the Confederation of Icelandic Employers. The Department of Political Science has taken a leading role within the Institute; the Chair of the Board is a docent from the Department, and the Director is a political scientist. A number of distinguished foreign political scientists serve on the Board of the Institute. The Centre for Small State Studies forms a part of the Institute for International Affairs. The aim of the Centre is to further research and teaching in small state studies. It has organized lectures, conferences, seminars and teaching on small states, besides publishing scholarly works on the subject. Since 2003 the Centre has – in cooperation with 11 foreign universities – operated a two-week summer school on small-state studies and European integration in Reykjavík. Icelandic and foreign scholars lecture at the summer school, which has become quite popular, attracting students from both the USA and several European countries, besides Iceland. The summer school is financially supported by ERASMUS, and so are some of the Department’s regular courses on Europe. The Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland was founded in 1986 and is jointly operated by the departments of the Faculty of Social Sciences. It is run without any public funding, but nevertheless employs eight full-time researchers, mainly graduates with BA or MA degrees from the University of Iceland. The institute carries out both academic research in cooperation with Faculty staff, mainly financed by research grants, and commercial research projects paid for by clients, for instance various surveys for private firms, associations, the media, political parties, ministries or other public institutions. Over the years, the Institute has gathered a substantial amount of data on Icelandic politics and society. The Institute has contributed to the European value studies, and the European Social Survey. It takes care of the technical execution of the Icelandic Election Study, which

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

238

has been conducted after parliamentary elections since 1983 under the supervision of political scientists. Most scholarly research projects on Icelandic politics have been funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNÍS), the University of Iceland Research Fund, and Nordic and European research grants. While the competitive research grants from the Icelandic Centre for Research have for a long time been meagre compared to other Nordic countries, a sharp increase in public funding for research has taken place in the last few years. So far, the emphasis has mainly been on the natural and life sciences, but one of the aims of the Icelandic Centre for Research in 2006-2009 is to strengthen research in the humanities and the social sciences. The Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Iceland and the Department of Political Science have in the last few years increased their emphasis on support staff specializing in applications to competitive research funds. Such an effort was deemed a prerequisite for an increase in successful applications.

2.5

Professional Communication

The only professional refereed journal in political science in Iceland is the newly founded web-journal of the Institute of Public Administration and Politics at the University of Iceland. Icelandic political scientists publish in various international journals, including Scandinavian Political Studies, Electoral Studies, European Journal of Political Research, British Journal of Political Science, Party Politics, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, and West European Politics. In 1995, the Icelandic Political Science Association was founded. The Association is open to everyone with at least a BA in political science, and works closely with the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland. Before, a joint association of political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists – founded in the 1970s – had existed, but not been very active. Both of these associations were formal members of NOPSA, the Nordic Political Science Association, while the Department of Political Science has de facto represented Iceland with one member on the NOPSA board since the 1970s. The NOPSA conference, held every three years, has twice taken place in Reykjavík, in 1990 and 2005, and on both occasions been hosted by the University of Iceland. Both of these conferences were unusually well attended. The NOPSA conference in Reykjavík in August 2005 consisted of some 30 workshops and over 300 participants. The Department of Political

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

239

Science has been a member of NISA, the Nordic International Studies Association, since the 1990s, and has one member on its board. The University of Iceland has been a member of the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) since the 1980s. While participation of Icelandic political scientists in the ECPR joint sessions was sporadic for a long time, it has become more common in the last few years. The ECPR summer school in Essex has on the other hand been regularly attended by Icelandic students for a long time. The Icelandic Political Science Association does not hold a national conference on political science. On the other hand, the Faculty of Social Sciences, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Iceland jointly hold annual conferences on research in the social sciences. Its sessions are open to the public. While most of the contributors come from the University of Iceland, scholars from other Icelandic universities have increasingly taken part. All contributions are published in books which are available during the conference.

3 The Future of Political Science in Iceland University education in Iceland has been rapidly expanding in recent years. In 1977, 11 percent of the population in the age brackets from 20 to 24 were registered as university undergraduates. In 1990, this figure had risen to 26 percent, and in 2001 to 50 percent. The University of Iceland has developed a very ambitious plan of development for the years 2006-2011. A major emphasis is put on strengthening research of international standard and increasing the number of postgraduate students, especially PhD students. In order to obtain these objectives, the University of Iceland will have to increase its income by at least 70 percent in the next few years. The increasing student demand for university education in Iceland in recent years has been met with both the foundation of new higher education institutions, and a major growth of the University of Iceland. Social sciences in general, and political science in particular, have been very popular among the growing student population, as can be witnessed by the enormous growth of the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland – as well as the establishment of social science studies in some other Icelandic higher education institutions in the last few years. There are several reasons for this growing student demand for social science studies in Iceland. Besides an interest in the subject matter, students have discovered that a university education, at least a BA degree, is increas-

240

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

ingly a necessary condition in the job market of a knowledge-based society. Many jobs in the service sector require a university degree – a good university degree rather than a particular kind of a university degree. Graduates with a degree in the social sciences have found it relatively easy to obtain jobs in the Icelandic market – jobs of the most varied kind. A strong emphasis within the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Iceland on statistics and research methods has undoubtedly strengthened the position of its graduates in the job market generally, both in the private and the public sector. A survey carried out among graduates from the Department of Political Science in 1995 – which at the time only offered a BA degree – showed that most of them had found suitable employment. Most careers were in media and public relations, public administration, international relations, teaching, research, interest groups, and politics. A sizable proportion worked in the private sector, and quite a few ran their own business. While such a survey has not been repeated, it seems nevertheless clear that those major patterns still prevail. In recent years, a steep increase of political science graduates working as journalists in the national media and in the ministries, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been very notable. The Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland has responded to those developments by establishing course-based Master programmes in these fields: an MPA programme in public administration, and an MA programme in international affairs. Besides, the staff of the Department has taken an active part in developing MA studies in journalism, which, at the moment, are located within the Department of Sociology at the Faculty of the Social Sciences. All three Master programmes are multi-disciplinary in the sense that students with various kinds of BA degrees can apply, and the teachers come from various disciplines. A major policy question for a small department wanting to excel in research is if it should only concentrate on few but excellent students who aim at a career in academia, or if it should take a broader approach. The Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland has adopted the latter strategy. The Department wants to continue to educate a relatively large proportion of Icelandic undergraduates – most of which will never be active in research. The Department also wants to develop job-related Master programmes that will attract enough students to be viable. The operation of these programmes at Master level will to some extent increase research output. That aim will however mainly be achieved by operating a smaller and more research-oriented programme of Master studies in political science proper – and a greatly increased number of PhD students. Most important, a larger unit will be able to employ more full-time staff than a more elite-oriented

The Current State of Political Science in Iceland

241

department, exclusively focused on research, would be able to do. The University of Iceland plans to increase the present average teacher/student ratio from 1:21 to 1:17. This will be a most welcome change in the Department of Political Science, where the present ratio is 1:79, compared to 1:50 for the Faculty of Social Sciences as a whole. A combination of mass education at the university level and an increasing emphasis on research activity of an international standard is thus seen as the way forward most likely to lead to excellence in Icelandic political science research. A broad base of undergraduate students and job-oriented Master programmes will support an increasing number of PhD students and staff engaged in research. Increased international cooperation is an integral part of this picture of the future. A major strength of the University of Iceland at the present lies in the fact that most of its teachers have obtained their PhD degrees from foreign universities. Many have attended the best universities in the world. Increasing the number of PhD students studying in Iceland will to some extent change this. Therefore, it is important that the University of Iceland encourages its PhD students to spend a part of their studies at foreign universities – and the introduction of joint-degrees is a possibility that should be explored. Some of the best Icelandic students will of course continue to pursue their graduate studies at the best universities abroad. The Department of Political Science should also aim at attracting more foreign students, as well as attracting foreign teachers, at least for temporary jobs (in addition to a few Fulbright scholars who have taught at the Department in recent years). The Department should become an active part of a (hopefully) much more open and flexible market for academics in Europe and the USA. In order to strengthen research a major effort has also to be put into financing research in the Department of Political Science, both from the private and the public sector – and both from Iceland an abroad. Continued visibility of political scientists in Icelandic society and still more cooperation with other parts of that society are essential for the future success of Icelandic political science. So is an increased participation in international research projects and more publications in international refereed journals.

References Kristinsson, Gunnar Helgi (1996): “Political Science in Iceland” in Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): Political Science in Europe: education, co-operation, prospects: report on the state of the discipline in Europe. Paris: Thematic Network Political Science: 323-336.

242

Ólafur Th. Hardarson

OECD (2005): OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. National Background Report for Iceland. The report was carried out by the Educational Testing Institute of Iceland for the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. University of Iceland website (http://www2.hi.is/page/hi_is_english_frontpage; March 2006).

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland John Coakley / Michael Laver

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

University System in General Ireland’s historical relationship with Great Britain had an enduring impact on the Irish university system, the history of which begins with the foundation in 1592 of the University of Dublin, or Trinity College Dublin (TCD). For long Ireland’s only university, TCD retained a Protestant character until the late 1960s, reflecting the dominant economic, social and political position of Ireland’s small Protestant minority. The growth of a Catholic middle class and the rise of Irish nationalism led to a government decision in 1845 to establish “Queen’s Colleges” in three provincial cities, Cork, Galway and Belfast. Although the colleges opened in 1849, their secular curriculum failed to satisfy Catholic demands. The Catholic bishops consequently resolved in 1850 to establish a Catholic University in Dublin (which opened in 1854). The most significant development in the evolution of the present university system took place in 1908, when the Queen’s Colleges in Cork and Galway were renamed University College Cork (UCC) and University College Galway (UCG) respectively, and merged with the Catholic institution in Dublin, now known as University College Dublin (UCD), as a federal university, the National University of Ireland. At the same time, the Queen’s College, Belfast, was given autonomous university status as The Queen’s University of Belfast (QUB). In 1910, the Catholic seminary and Pontifical University at St Patrick’s College Maynooth, founded in 1795 and at one time the largest seminary in the world, became a “recognized college” in the National University. The partition of Ireland in 1921 detached Queen’s University from the southern portion of the island that went on to become the Republic of Ireland. In the early decades of the independent Irish state, the university system inherited from the British continued with little modification. In 1966, how-

244

John Coakley / Michael Laver

ever, St Patrick’s College Maynooth opened its doors to lay students. In 1978, six third level colleges in Dublin were merged to form the Dublin Institute of Technology. The next plank in the present system was put in place in 1989, when two technologically-oriented “National Institutes for Higher Education”, founded in Limerick (1972) and Dublin (1975), were granted autonomous university status as the University of Limerick (UL) and Dublin City University (DCU). The Irish government engaged in a fundamental legal consolidation of the Irish University system with the Universities Act, 1997. The constituent colleges of the National University were given independent university status, maintaining their links as constituent universities of the National University of Ireland (NUI). They were joined by the Faculties of Arts, Science, Celtic Studies and Philosophy at Maynooth, which were united in a newly established constituent of the National University – NUI, Maynooth. NUI, Dublin and NUI, Cork chose to retain their traditional names, with the result that there is now a legally recognized set of seven universities in Ireland: Dublin City University (DCU) National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUIM) Trinity College, Dublin (TCD) University College Cork (UCC) University College Dublin (UCD) University of Limerick (UL)

www.dcu.ie www.ucg.ie www.nuim.ie www.tcd.ie www.ucc.ie www.ucd.ie www.ul.ie

Political Science in Particular Political science in Ireland, as elsewhere, is one of the more recently established university disciplines. Following the establishment of the National University in 1908, the first politics professorship in Ireland was created, a chair of ethics and politics in UCD. Political science remained underdeveloped as a university subject during the inter-war years, however; curriculum development was limited and only a small volume of published work appeared during this period. Even this work emanated largely from related disciplines such as history, constitutional law and philosophy, though occasional contributions from the incumbent of the UCD chair are to be found, and American political scientists began to write about Irish politics. Contrasting cultural traditions can be seen in the paths by which modern political science emerged in Irish universities. In UCD, where the college’s origins as a Catholic university long remained visible, areas considered “sensitive” by the Catholic church (such as education, philosophy and politics) were especially prone to clerical influence. The first lay appointment in the Department of Ethics and Politics took place only in 1961, but this was followed by a significant expansion in political science and in the birth of po-

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland

245

litical science in the modern sense in UCD. This expansion continued in the 1970s and the 1980s and, with the transfer to another department of the areas of ethics and moral philosophy in 1989, the department became the Department of Politics, a re-titling that marked a more pronounced emphasis on political science. Two other colleges of the National University moved in the direction of developing a political science department. A chair of political science and sociology was created in UCG in 1969. As in UCD, this area was initially under clerical influence, and the first lay professor of social science in the National University (one of the present authors) was appointed to this in 1983. In UCC, public administration had for some time been recognized as a subject in the Commerce faculty, and in the 1990s it was gradually transformed into a Department of Government, with a greatly strengthened politics component. In TCD, the first appointment in political science was made in 1948, and a Department of Political Science, dating from 1959, has become firmly established. In the newer universities, political science was established during the 1970s in interdisciplinary departments: in the Department of Government and Society at UL, in the Business School of DCU and in the Department of Communications at the Dublin Institute of Technology. In the past few years, however, internal university reorganization has resulted in the creation of three new departments: the School of Law and Government at DCU; the Department of Politics and Public Administration at UL; and the Department of Government at UCC. As a result there are now six Irish universities with departments devoted wholly or partially to political science. At the time of writing, however, a number of Irish universities, including TCD and UCD, are in the throes of major internal reorganization as they respond to very serious funding pressures by consolidating what has traditionally been a large number of relatively small departments into a smaller number of relatively large “schools” in the belief that this will yield costsavings and enhanced critical mass. It remains to be seen whether this is a largely cosmetic exercise, designed to impress government and other funding agencies, with the essentials of the constituent political science “departments” remaining intact within the new structures, or the harbinger of more fundamental changes for political science in Ireland.

1.2

Current Developments: Bologna Process

It is probably fair to say that the Bologna Process has had almost no impact as yet on political science in Ireland. More generally in the Irish university system, while the notion of a Bologna Process is often bandied about in discussions, its bottom-line impact on policy making to date has been slight.

246

John Coakley / Michael Laver

Perhaps the most important reason for this is that, as with the British system, the main shape of the undergraduate and postgraduate cycle in Ireland is seen as already being much closer to the Bologna model that is the case in many continental European systems. For this reason, Bologna has not been seen as presenting an urgent need for really fundamental reform of the system as a whole. Probably the greatest impact on the system has been in the area of Quality Assurance / Quality Improvement (QA/QI). Given the Bologna ideal of much greater intra-European transferability of course credits, within a European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the need for common international standards in QA/QI has been clearly recognized in Ireland. Significant moves have been made towards a standardized QA/QI system for Irish universities, with the establishment of the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) (see www.iuqb.ie). The IUQB represents the Irish universities internationally in discussions directly related to international quality assurance within the Bologna Process. The most frequent source of reference in Ireland to the Bologna Process is in this context. A significant impediment to the full integration of Irish universities into the Bologna Process arises from the fact that undergraduate course structures, for political science as well as for most other degrees, differ between Irish universities. Thus TCD undergraduate degrees involving political science have a four-year cycle with courses organized on an academic year basis; UL degrees are typically on a four-year basis with courses organized on a semester system; while equivalent DCU, UCD, UCC and NUIG degrees have three-year cycles with courses organized on a semester basis. The four-year TCD degree is much-cherished within the university, for example, while attempts by previous provosts to semesterize the TCD curriculum have been soundly defeated within the university; any move to introduce three-year degrees in the name of European standardization would be intensely controversial, although there is a growing feeling that semesterization may be an inevitable consequence of internationalization. A further impediment arises from the nature of the system for undergraduate admissions, operated on a national basis through the Central Applications Office (CAO). This is discussed below, but a crucial feature of the system is that, even within universities, it can be difficult if not impossible to transfer from courses with low admissions requirements to those with high admissions requirements. The general level of intra-university course transfers is low, leading to a situation where it may, paradoxically, be easier to transfer to or from another European university than to transfer courses within a single Irish university. Full implementation of an EQF, therefore, would have profound implications for intra- and inter-university transfers within Ireland, implications that have yet to be addressed seriously.

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland

247

Overall, full implementation of the Bologna ideals could have significant implications for political science in Ireland – most notably in opening up the market in inter-university course transfers. This could be extremely controversial if universities whose courses were perceived as being more popular and/or prestigious were to decide to “cream off” top-performing students, mid-stream, from other universities – a possibility that would open up under a fully-functioning EQF. For the most part, however, the prevailing view is probably that full implementation of the Bologna ideals is unlikely in the foreseeable future, and will happen in ways that cannot easily be foreseen, so that these are issues that are more productively worried about at a later date.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

As noted above, six Irish university departments are “officially” involved in political science: DCU NUIG TCD UCC UCD UL

School of Law and Government (7 staff, inc. 1 professor) Department of Political Science and Sociology (9 staff*, inc. 1 prof) Department of Political Science (8 staff, inc. 1 prof, 2 aspros) Department of Government (7 staff, inc. 1 prof.) Department of Politics (11 staff, inc. 1 prof, 3 aspros) Department of Politics and Public Administration (11 staff**, inc. 3 profs)

* = subjective evaluation of staff specializing in political science ** = including public administration

No independent research centre formally embraces political science, though one specialist body (the Institute of European Affairs) periodically commissions reports by political scientists.

2.2

Degree System and Admission Regulations

All of the above departments offer single or joint undergraduate programmes on politics – although by far the most common pattern is for politics to be combined at undergraduate level with some related subject – history, sociology, law, etc. Such courses last either for three years (DCU, NUIG, UCD, UCC) or four years (TCD, UL).

248

John Coakley / Michael Laver

As noted above, admission to undergraduate courses is centralized in Ireland, and administered via the Central Applications Office (CAO) (see www.cao.ie). Irish secondary school students are assessed at the end of the secondary cycle using nationally administered Leaving Certificate examinations in a range of subjects – typically between six and nine. Grades in the best six subjects are scored (with and A1 getting 100, A2 getting 90, B2 getting 80, D2 getting 50, etc.), so that a student can get a maximum of 600 points. All university applicants complete a standard application form, listing a limited number of courses for which they wish to apply. Each course has size quotas that are set by the university in the light of available resources. Once national leaving certificate results are available in late August, the CAO computer allocates students to courses according to their scores. Thus, if a course has a quota of 30, the top 30 students who have applied to the course are offered a place, and so on.1 Individual Irish universities thus play no part in the admission of their own Irish undergraduate students. Admissions procedures for non-Irish students vary by university and are more ad hoc – although non-Irish qualification levels are converted into leaving certificate equivalents. The most difficult politics course in the country to get into is the History and Political Science programme at TCD, limited by resource constraints to 15 students per year. In 2004, its minimum points score for entry was 550 out of 600, with a median entrant on 570 points. Within TCD, only Law, Medicine and Psychology (all with intakes strictly limited by professional accreditation) were more difficult to get into. More generally, entry requirements for political science programmes are in the mainstream of standards for Irish undergraduate university admission. Social science courses tend to have higher admissions requirements than general arts, science or engineering courses (which tend to have larger intakes), and lower requirements than courses leading to professional qualifications (which have highly restricted admissions quotas). Undergraduate tuition fees are regulated by the government. Officially all EU undergraduate students enjoy “free fees” in Ireland – nominal fees are set but then paid by the government, which in practice treats this as part of the state subvention to the universities. However, registration and other “charges”, which according to the government are not “fees” although these charges are regulated by the government and paid by students using real money that could otherwise be spent on beer or books, have been mounting rapidly in recent years, and are now approaching €1,000 per year. Most students embark on university education immediately after leaving secondary school, typically aged 17 or 18. Since they begin formal university study much earlier than many continental European counterparts, since the 1

In practice, courses are “overbooked” with offers in the knowledge of known take-up rates for offers on the type of course involved.

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland

249

undergraduate course may be as short as three years, and since most students complete the course in the minimum time prescribed, the typical age at which political science students graduate is 20-21 (DCU, NUIG, UCC, UCD) or 2122 (TCD, UL). A considerable number of students begin college at a much later age, however, and thus add a very important component of maturity to the student body.2 Master programmes in political science are not offered by NUIG and TCD. The other four Irish departments engaged in political science teaching offer Master programmes as follows: DCU: UCC: UCD: UL:

MA in: International Relations; International Security Studies; Globalization MSc in: Government MA in: Politics; European Studies; Development Studies MA in: European Integration; Peace and Development Studies; International Studies

Doctoral degrees in political science are offered in all six departments engaged in political science teaching – typically on the basis of supervised independent study and research. TCD departs from this pattern, with an integrated MPhil/PhD programme in political science that incorporates both taught courses and research and extends over four years. Fee structures for postgraduate courses vary considerable from university to university, and the Irish “free fees” policy does not apply to postgraduate programmes. Most Master students must pay their own fees, which are in the €3,300-5,000/year range. Fees for non-EU students are typically double these. At PhD level, individual universities maintain their own systems of competitive studentships, to cover fees and maintenance, while the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Science (IRCHSS) operates a system of postgraduate research studentships, valued at €12,700 per year (see www. irchss.ie). The latter scheme has recently produced a major improvement in the funding environment for postgraduate political science research in Ireland. Notwithstanding this, many postgraduate research students in political science effectively finance their own research on the basis of either parental support or part-time work, and it is common for PhD students to be paid on an ad-hoc basis by their departments as tutors, teaching assistants and, at a senior level, part-time lecturers. The latter phenomenon is a com-

2

Official policy is to increase substantially the number of mature students, who after the age of 22 are formally admitted on the basis of “matriculation by mature years”, as opposed to results in the Leaving Certificate examinations. In practice, each university administers its own admissions testing for mature students, although there are significant moves to standardize this process.

John Coakley / Michael Laver

250

mon source of considerable extensions to the period needed to complete and write up PhD research.

2.3

Areas of Teaching

There is an emphasis on the teaching of Irish politics in all of the Irish undergraduate political science programmes. This is the strongest unifying feature across departments, reinforced by the use of a common introductory textbook Politics in the Republic of Ireland. This text was originally sponsored by the Political Studies Association of Ireland (PSAI), although it is now in its fourth edition and successfully published by a commercial publishing house (Routledge). It has become the standard source for the introductory teaching of Irish politics, as well as being a valuable introduction for comparative researchers wanting a one-stop introduction to Irish politics. Beyond that, there is no real sense in Ireland that there is an indispensable core of political science and undergraduate programmes vary substantially in content. Although almost all undergraduate programmes offer courses in classical political theory, methodology, electoral politics, EU and European politics, comparative politics, and international relations, the small size of all departments means that the detailed curricula they offer are strongly influenced by the skills and interests of department members.

2.4

Research

Until very recently the problem that had always impeded the development of political science research in Ireland was a staggering shortage of research funding, the result of a strong tendency for public funding of universities to be directed exclusively towards teaching, with little to spare for research. The beginnings of change in this respect can be traced to the creation, in 1995, of an Irish Social Science Research Council (ISSRC). This was essentially a private organization established under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy, which received a very small amount of Irish government funding – about €127,000 per year. This was supplemented by limited additional funding from a private British foundation that was intended to cover north-south collaborative research. These funds were intended to cover the entire discretionary research funding for the social sciences in Ireland. Another major foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, had a huge impact on university based research in general, and on the social sciences in particular. By 2002, it had spent $606m in the Republic of Ireland and $182m in Northern Ireland, and the portion of this that went to the social sciences allowed this Cinderella area to undertake a volume of research that could not have been contemplated earlier (see www.atlanticphilanthropies. org). This was

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland

251

associated with a major structural improvement in 1998, with the launch by the Irish government of a Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI). This was a complete break from the tradition of public sector support, in that funding levels were very substantial, and research funding was open to all disciplines. In particular, each Irish university was asked to put forward a multidisciplinary package of research programmes, which were evaluated as a whole by a prestigious panel of international referees. Thus it became possible, as a result of the intra-university politics at which political scientists can be quite effective, to insert very substantial political science research programmes into PRTLI applications. The initial result was remarkable, with state funding for the first wave of an Irish Social and Political Survey programme, and an Irish Social Science Data Archive – the latter a project developed in pilot studies by the ISSRC. Since these research applications were in a package with the natural sciences, the survey programme alone was funded at a level several times higher than the previous annual research budget for the entire social sciences in Ireland. The result has been the first ever Irish National Election Study (INES), which has been funded at a level generous enough to allow a series of follow-up panel studies – an unimaginable luxury just a few years earlier. Various rounds of the PRTLI have funded, at similar levels, full Irish participation in the first two rounds of the European Social Survey (again unimaginable a few years earlier); the creation of an Institute for the Study of Social Change at UCD; the creation of an Institute for International Integration Studies at TCD; and a range of other initiatives. While very welcome, and providing a major shot in the arm for political science research in Ireland, a significant problem with PRTLI research finding is that each funding round is “one-off”, with no guarantee of continued funding. Thus there is no long-term policy commitment to any of the above initiatives, all of which must engage in a continuous struggle for continuation funding in a highly unpredictable environment. Recent major Irish government research funding, for example, has been focused on building international centers of excellence in ICT and biotechnology. A more stable and equally welcome addition to the research funding environment came with the creation in 2000 of the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Science (IRCHSS), which in the current year has a budget of €8m. As can be seen from its title, the IRCHSS covers both the humanities and the social sciences. In addition to the postgraduate studentship programme noted above, it operates an internationally refereed system of research fellowships for senior and junior staff, enabling these to take a year off teaching and administration to conduct research projects. This has made a major difference in a system that was previously so under-funded that sabbatical leave was a very rare luxury. In addition, it has a limited programme for funding individual research projects, although it does not have

John Coakley / Michael Laver

252

the funding to cover major infrastructural research undertakings, such as election studies and data archives. With the creation of the IRCHSS, the ISSRC effectively became defunct and formally disbanded, its job done. However, it has effectively continued as a social science research committee of the Royal Irish Academy, administering a grant of €1.9m from Atlantic Philanthropies, for a “Third Sector Research Programme” focused on the voluntary sector in Ireland. This programme has disbursed postgraduate research studentships and research project funding across the social sciences north and south of the border, including a significant number to political scientists. The programme is now coming to an end, however, as the funding agency has shifted its priorities away from the sponsorship of academic research. Turning to the research specializations of individual Irish departments, each department is moving towards carving out a niche for itself, as part of a process whereby the specializations of Irish political scientists have moved away from a somewhat introverted concern with Irish politics and towards the international mainstream. Of the Dublin departments, TCD would be best known for the study of elections and party competition; UCD would be known for its focus on Irish and Northern Ireland politics, as well as its strengths in political theory; and DCU is developing its strengths in international relations, EU and European politics. Outside, Dublin, NUIG is known for its focus on social and public policy, as well as its strengths in theory; UL has a focus on international relations, EU politics and public administration; while UCC has strengths in local politics and administration, as well as European politics.

2.5

Professional Communication

The Political Studies Association of Ireland (PSAI) was founded in Dublin in 1982 with the object of promoting the study of politics in and of Ireland. Its first conference was in Galway in 1984, where it adopted a constitution and a formal structure. Membership, which is open beyond the political science profession, has increased from an initial 44 to stabilize at somewhere over 200. Of these, somewhat under half are based in the Republic of Ireland, somewhat under a quarter in Northern Ireland with about the same number on the British mainland; the remainder are based in continental Europe, North America and more far-flung parts of the world. The PSAI’s activities resemble those of other national associations. In addition to forwarding the interests of the discipline generally, the association organizes an annual conference each autumn, holds a seminar and reception in June, and organizes research activities of other kinds. Its publishing activities include a twiceyearly newsletter, a journal, Irish Political Studies (published by the associa-

The Current State of Political Science in Ireland

253

tion as a yearbook until 2001, and then taken over by Frank Cass and later Routledge), and a number of other items, including a series of books analyzing the results of successive general elections (1987, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2002); a textbook, Politics in the Republic of Ireland; and a collection of previously unpublished election results for the period 1922-44. The PSAI’s publishing activities have perhaps been its most significant contribution, given the small size of the Irish market and the precarious commercial viability of related publications. In the case of the journal, the textbook and the election books, the pattern in each case has been a shift from PSAI self-publication to PSAI sponsorship, to self-sustaining publication by a commercial publisher. There is no doubt that this suite of publications has provided a solid foundation for the consolidation of the political science profession in Ireland. Given the commercial success of these ventures which are now effectively spun off from the PSAI, and given the large array of international conferences and workshops that Irish political scientists can now attend, it may be that some question exists over the particular measure of added value that the PSAI can provide, given the small size of the Irish profession. Its publishing ventures have left it well-funded, however, so the question that remains for the PSAI is to find a distinctive and valuable role for a national professional association in an environment where the national profession is very small but also, these days, very international in its outlook. Irish political scientists have always played a significant role in the development of organizations such as the ECPR, epsNet and international organizations such as IPSA. Thus Irish political scientists have occupied roles as secretary general and programme chair of IPSA, coeditor of the EJPR, council and executive committee members of ECPR and APSA – a considerable degree of international impact for such a small profession. Irish political scientists are active participants in international conferences, and indeed remain at least as likely to meet each other at offshore conferences as they are at the national Irish conference.

3 The Future of Political Science in Ireland For the most part, political scientists have not had a very large impact on Irish politics and society. Irish politicians and other decision-makers tend by and large to think that they know what they need to know about Irish politics. They are thus rarely disposed to seek advice from Irish political scientists, or to commission research by them. This position contrasts with the perceived greater policy relevance (or lower level of general accessibility) of certain other disciplines, such as economics or even sociology, where policy makers are more likely to seek advice from academics. Notable exceptions arise at

254

John Coakley / Michael Laver

the times of elections and referenda, where “punditry” from political scientists is actively sought out by the news media. There are however some recent signs of change in this regard. There was a political scientist among the lawyers on the Irish government’s Constitution Review Group, and political scientists have recently acted as expert witnesses (both for and against the government) in a number of high-profile constitutional cases. Consultancy advice has recently been sought from political scientists on matters such as: the reform of the legislative committee system; reform of the Senate; the introduction of electronic voting. In this sense, and in relation of a limited number of specific areas for the most part involving institutional design, the professional opinion and research output of political scientists is increasingly recognized as an input into the larger decision-making process. As noted above, the research funding environment, while significantly improved, remains precarious and there are big decisions still to be made about the longer-term source of major infrastructural expenditures, including the election study and the data archive. If, for example, no election study is funded for the next Irish election or if the data archive is starved of funds, and these remain very much open questions, then some of the apparent gains that have been made in recent years may prove to have been illusory. As also noted above, another source of uncertainty for the future concerns the ongoing internal reorganization of Irish universities. It seems likely that stand-alone departments of political science will come under considerable pressure to merge with other areas, with political science being incorporated as a section within larger schools of social science. With the possible exception of the new School of Politics and International Relations at UCD (created in 2005 by a merger of the Department of Politics, the Dublin European Institute and the Centre for Development Studies), no Irish political science department is large enough, given current bureaucratic norms, to be seen as a self-sufficient entity in its own right. But all of this may in the end make no practical difference to what Irish political scientists actually do. Irish political science is likely to remain a small profession for the foreseeable future. Given high levels of international mobility and intense global connectedness via the internet, this small size seems likely to make less and less of a difference to the quality of research output, as Irish political scientists increasingly participate as members of a global professional community. However, this does pose questions about the role of the national professional organization, and it does mean that Irish political scientists will remain relatively weak, collectively, when it comes to fighting for additional resources, both within their own universities and within the country as a whole. Note:

For an earlier report, some of which has been incorporated in the present document, and for further bibliographical references, see John Coakley, “Political science in Ireland”, pp. 295-320 in JeanLouis Quermonne, ed., Political science in Europe: education, co-operation, prospects: report on the state of the discipline in Europe (Paris: Thematic Network Political Science, 1996); also available http://www.eps net.org/publications/ sod/ireland.pdf [2005-06-11].

The Current State of Political Science in Italy∗ Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background

The first chair of political science was filled in Italy at the University of Florence in 1966; by European, not to mention American, standards, this makes Italian political science a very young discipline indeed. In other words, the emergence of political science as an academic discipline is a post-World War II development. This might come as a surprise to anybody familiar with the early literature of modern political science: after all, two of the major precursors of our discipline, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto, produced their works in the pre-World War II period, not to mention the central role played by Roberto Michels, who came to Italy as an academic refugee from Germany recommended by no less than Max Weber to a very influential Italian social scientist, Achille Loria. He arranged many an academic job for Michels who, eventually, was given a chair in political economy at the University of Perugia. From a technical point of view, neither Mosca nor Pareto can be portrayed as political scientists. The former, a gentleman of leisure, active in politics, won a chair of constitutional law at middle age. When he gave free or optional courses – other than the mandatory one in constitutional law – they were labelled as political history. The latter, a mechanical engineer by training (he was employed by the Italian rail-system), became very rich by inheritance and moved to Switzerland where he lived as a full-time scholar. He had no academic official duties in Italy, except for occasional lectures or free courses given at several universities.

∗

We wish to thank Giliberto Capano for providing data about the academic organization of political science in Italy and Giorgio Sola for offering a perspective of the origins of the discipline.

256

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

A non-Italian reader perusing the files of the Ministry of Education in Rome would be inclined to challenge the opening statement of this report, whereby the Italian political science’s birthdate as an academic discipline is 1966. He would have detected that several Facoltà di scienze politiche had been established long before World War II. The oldest, in Florence, dates back to 1874. Three others were established in Padua, Pavia and Rome in 1924, and in 1927 the Facoltà Fascista di scienze politiche was instituted in Perugia. Apparently, a veritable surfeit of riches. An elucidation is in order here. The expression Facoltà di scienze politiche contains two false friends for an English-speaking reader. The first is the term facoltà that, in Italian academic parlance, carries two distinct meanings. On the one hand, it refers to the teaching staff of a school or a department, exactly as in English. On the other hand, it denotes a teaching institution, again such as a school or a department, more precisely a teaching unit with a specific professional curriculum designed to produce graduates filling specific needs in society: doctors, teachers, engineers. Multidisciplinary content is the central characteristics of such curricula, as contrasted with the mono-disciplinary content of purely scientific curricula, such as, e.g., mathematics or physics. The Facoltà di scienze politiche instituted between 1874 and 1927 were typically multidisciplinary, training diplomats, civil servants, colonial administrators, trade union functionaries and journalists1. Our second false friend hides behind the expression scienze politiche, which is the plural of scienza politica (political science). Bizarre as it may seem, there have been until recently faculties of political science with curricula listing dozens of subjects, none of them labelled scienza politica (see also section II below). There is an institutional and organisational explanation of this seemingly aberrant layout. Curricula were authoritatively dictated by the Ministry of Education, with special emphasis on mandatory courses (the only ones for which you could establish a full professorial chair). Faculties could have some leeway in adding optional or free courses: until 1966 political science was introduced in some curricula as a free or optional teaching subject only. Thus, up to the 1960s and early 1970s a typical curriculum of a political science faculty would have about 40-50 percent of the courses taught by professors of law, then an healthy percentage by historians and philosophers, one or two by an economist and, occasionally, one by a sociologist or an anthropologist. No political scientists. As it can easily be seen, this arrangement mirrored a dominance of law professors, and an influential participation of historians and philosophers. The procedure by which full professor positions were awarded until the early 1970s made sure that the power structure described above could con1

As one could read in the curriculum of the University of Perugia.

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

257

tinue unscathed. When a faculty decided to have a chair filled, a national election was held to choose a committee of five full professors who would have scrutinized the published works of the candidates and declare three winners: the first one got the job, and the other two had three years to find a faculty willing to hire them. The electoral process was outlandishly inadequate. Let us give an example bearing on our discussion. Say a faculty of political science had decided to put up for competition a chair in the social sciences (up to the 1960s, Italian social scientists were no more than 15-20 nationally). When it came to electing a five-man evaluation panel, all the full professors of all the faculties of political science and of the schools of law nationwide constituted the active and passive electorate, easily running into the hundreds. Not infrequently – as can be imagined – the five judges had to evaluate candidates whose publications were totally outside their expertise. A combination of luck, politics, and the syndrome of amicism usually determined the outcome of the game. If these structural constraints made very difficult for a modern, empirically oriented political scientist to gain official recognition, an even higher cultural barrier was adamantly determined to block the progress of empirical political science. In post-World War II Italy the ideological temperature was very high. Marxists, old Liberals, and Catholics inspired by the social doctrine of the Church, dominated the stage, and were equally suspicious of empirical disciplines such as political science. The advocates of a prescriptive view of social reality, the revolutionaries, the architects of the social and political order, were dead set against an empirical knowledge of political facts which would have distracted the attention from the comforting consideration of values and ideals to the harshness of human nature and the struggle for power. Quite correctly, the academic enemies of political science had perceived that empirical political science is the antithesis of ideological thought. The anti-political science academic component was a tri-partite coalition of axiological philosophers, Kelsenian law professors and historians preaching neo-idealistic historicism. Philosophers took the lofty view that while political science is stuck with the vile and raw facts of power, philosophy handles absolute and universal values. The lawyers, armed with the notion of an agnostic positive law, took most unkindly to the political science interest in law in action, actual behaviour and collective choices. The historians, deeply set in the conviction that historical facts are unique, vehemently rejected the idea that generalizations could be constructed by the simultaneous consideration of a large number of cases. Lawyers, philosophers and historians at most could endure political science as a form of academic lowlife conceding, as they did, that political scientists would, at best, play an auxiliary and ancillary role gathering information to be processed into truly scholarly outcomes by others.

258

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

The dismal situation described above began changing rapidly in the 1960s. The major breakthrough took place in 1966 when Giovanni Sartori, the progenitor of today’s Italian political scientists – after winning a chair in sociology three years earlier – was appointed to a chair in political science at the University of Florence. Political science had eventually obtained full academic legitimacy. This event has a more than symbolic meaning: it signals the beginning of a roughly 15-year long period which led to the consolidation of political science as an academic discipline. Several factors – institutional, organisational and cultural – account for this positive development, as we show in the conclusion of this section.

The Influence of American Political Science In the late 1950s and during the 1960s, American political science was very important in socializing and training a relatively high number of those who are today senior professors. In particular the Ford Foundation greatly contributed to the establishment of empirical political science. This was done by supporting two programmes: On the one hand, the Ford Foundation cooperated in establishing and running (1958-63) the School of Administrative Sciences (SPISA) which involved in a joint agreement the School of Law of Bologna and the Department of Political Science, Berkeley. From an institutional point of view this venture was not a success but, as a by-product, a number of young graduates were trained in Berkeley. Five of them became later professors in Italy, four in Political Science and one in Sociology. On the other hand, the Ford Foundation generously supported the activities of the committee for the development of political science (COSPOS), which involved the training of several young graduates (mostly from the universities of Florence and Turin), five of whom are now senior professors. We can conclude by observing that, to a large extent, contemporary political science was nurtured under the auspices of the Ford Foundation and American institutions of higher learning.

Availability of New Resources In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Italy too went through the experience – common to the other European countries – of a dramatic increase in enrolments in the university system, stemming from the need to upgrade the skills of the working force coupled with what was defined as the equality of opportunities revolution. This sudden pressure led to the expansion of the existing universities, the creation of new schools and the availability of relatively large numbers of teaching jobs.

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

259

Curricular Reform of the Faculties of Political Science The old curriculum laid out for the faculties of Political Science in the 1920s was felt by many to be obsolete, and plans were devised to create a new curricular system meeting the needs and expectations of a post-industrial democratic society. Thus, in 1968, a decree introduced a new very articulate curriculum; faculties were free to stick to their old ways or to adopt the new plan. The four-year curriculum was divided into two parts. The first two year program, of an introductory and comprehensive nature, was mandatory for all students who, upon enrolling in the third year, could choose between five specialized options: historical, sociological, international, economic and politics/administration. This made it possible to introduce a sizeable number of new courses in political science, international relations and public administration.

New Rules of the Game for the Competitive Filling of Academic Positions By the mid-1970s the old cumbersome system for the election of evaluating committees had become absolutely untenable. It might have worked in the old elitist days when electoral bodies were at most 50 members strong; with elections involving hundreds, it had lost any capacity to make sense. A new system was contrived, guided by the idea that both judges and candidates had to speak the same disciplinary language. Elections and competitions continued to be national, and the new electoral bodies were grouped according to a classification system based on specific disciplines. In order to be selfsufficient for electoral purposes a disciplinary group had to be at least 15 full professors strong. Lacking this, the group had to be augmented by adding to it active electors from neighbouring disciplines. The disciplinary group “Political Science” was designed according to very stringent internationally accepted criteria so that its core was represented by such fields as non-normative political theory, comparative politics, public administration, and international relations. When the first national competitions took place, political science did not have the numbers to go solo, and thus the electoral body was buttressed by including normative political theory, history of political institutions, history of political thought, and political sociology. By the early 1980s, the political science group had attained autonomy. Taken as a combination, the four factors discussed above constitute what we might define a “window of opportunity” for the take off of political science.

260

1.2

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

Current Developments: The Bologna Process

Italy is implementing the principles of the Bologna Process through national laws and regulations which are valid and compulsory for all higher education institutions. Higher education is regulated by a ministerial decree approved in 1999 (509/99) and implemented since 2001. A Ministerial Decree of 22 October 2004 updates and revises the Ministerial Decree 509/1999 concerning the reform of the higher education system.2 In many European countries, the organization of higher education has been based on a two-degree system for a long time. A common feature of this structure is a first degree (Bachelor) allowing access to a second degree (Master). This structure has traditionally been in place in Ireland, the U.K. and Malta, and in continental European countries such as France. In Germany, a new system based on two main degrees was introduced in 1998. Following the Bologna Process, Italy introduced a two-degree system in 2001: a first degree, equivalent to a Bachelor and named Laurea (three years), allowing access to a 1st-level Master (one year) or to a second degree named Laurea specialistica (two years) or to a 1st-level Diploma di specializzazione (three years). Besides, the 2001 reform introduced a national credit system based on learning activities (1 credit is equal to 25 hours of activity). A student must pass a number of exams which amounts to 60 credits per year. Grades are based on a 0-30-point scale (where 18 is the minimum passing grade and 30 the maximum). Such grades can be converted into an A (excellent) to F (insufficient) scale. Other important regulations that have been approved following the Bologna Process are the ratification of the Lisbon Convention (Law 148/2002) introducing some substantial innovations into the Italian legislation as well as in procedures for academic recognition; the establishment of a fund to support student mobility, including supplementary funds for Erasmus grants (Law 170/2003); the introduction of a National Register of Students and Graduates (Ministerial Decree of 30 April 2004). An important consequence of the Bologna Process and of the decisions later made on the strength of it has been the introduction of a national quality evaluation system (Ministerial Decree 146 of 28 July 2004). A national system, modelled after those put in place in other countries (national agencies running assessment exercises with guidelines, effective evaluation procedures and peer review) is not yet operational for teaching, although a National Committee for the Assessment of the University System (CNVSU) has 2

The content of this section is largely based on two reports: Focus sulle strutture dell’istruzione superiore in Europa 2003-2004. Evoluzioni nazionali nell’ambito del processo di Bologna, European Commission; Toward the European Higher Education Area. Bologna process National Report 2004-2005, MIUR, Italy.

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

261

been in operation since 1999 (former “Observatory for the Assessment of the University System”, created in 1993). The Committee has published documents and proposals for a national system of university quality assessment which, however, is not yet in place. The CNVSU collects yearly data from universities, which include some indicators; moreover it analyses the “evaluation reports” provided by universities’ Assessment Units (Nuclei di Valutazione) and drafts a national report, based on the information provided and on questionnaires administered by the “Nucleo” of each university to the students. CNVSU also establishes minimal requirements for the setting up of a degree course in universities. The university internal assessment units were established by law in 1993. Their role has been re-defined in 1999. Their tasks include: drafting an annual report on the basis of the request of information issued by CNVSU, in particular on the internal structures and their activities; collecting and sending data on the basis of indicators provided by the CNVSU; surveying the students in order to be informed about their opinion concerning teaching activities; drafting a report on the results of the questionnaires, to be sent to the CNVSU. The assessment units also provide advice on the PhD courses to be set up (or to be confirmed) at their universities, on the basis of established requirements. Since 1995, CRUI (the Conference of Italian University Rectors) has implemented procedures for teaching assessment related to first-degree courses. This has been limited to some universities in the first phase (19951999) – when the assessment was carried out on the three-year degrees in existence at that time (Diplomi universitari) – and since 2001 on the newly established “Laurea” (Bachelor level): the assessment has involved Bachelor courses at 70 universities. Research assessment is carried out by CIVR (Committee for Research Assessment). The research assessment is carried out by panels of experts (national and international) who evaluate the outputs of research activities for the different areas (peer review). The first assessment exercise for universities started in the summer of 2004 (see section 2 for results about social and political sciences area).

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

Political science faculties exist in many Italian universities (see Table 1). Typically, these faculties offer curricula including not only political science

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

262

but also political philosophy, law, history, economics, sociology, statistics, and foreign languages. In the years 1999-2005, the percentage of political scientists, or academics with positions classified as “political science” (SPS/04) by the official website of the Ministry of Higher Education (MIUR), increased from 6.5 percent to 7.2 percent (Capano 2005). However, this figure is still lower than the percentage of law professors (23.8 percent), historians (18.3 percent), economists (16 percent) and sociologists (14 percent). This gives an indication that the Italian political science faculties have retained a structure where the traditional dominance by lawyers and historians is still much in evidence. Only recently this supremacy has been challenged by sociologists and economists. Table 1: Distribution of political scientists in Italian universities and political science faculties Universities

Bari Bologna

Political scientists Political scientists Political scientists Political scientists per university teaching in facul- as a percentage of teaching in other ties of political the total teaching faculties science staff 67 (-) 28 28 159 (17.6%)

Cagliari Calabria Catania Firenze Genova Lecce

1 4 10 18 5 1

Macerata Messina Milano Statale Milano Bicocca

1 1 16 1

Milano Politecnico

1

Milano Cattolica

5

Milano Bocconi

2

Molise

2

Napoli Federico II Napoli orientale Padova Palermo Parma Pavia

4 3 10 2 1 8

1 4 10 18 5 No political science faculty 1 1 16 No political science faculty No political science faculty 3

No political science faculty No political science faculty 3 10 2 No political science faculty 8

54 (1.9%) 44 (9.1%) 88 (11.4%) 114 (15.9%) 62 (8%)

Literature

29 (3.5%) 58 (1.7%) 201 (8%) Sociology Architecture 37 (8.1%)

Sociology, communication sciences Economics Economics

94 (-) 62 (4.8%) 111 (9%) 71 (2.8%)

Sociology

Literature 63 (12.7%)

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

263

Table 1: (cont’d) Universities

Perugia Perugia Stranieri Piemonte Orientale Pisa Roma La Sapienza Roma III Roma Luiss Roma San Pio V Roma Lumsa Salerno Sassari Siena Teramo Torino Trento Trieste Tuscia Urbino Total

Source:

Political scientists Political scientists Political scientists Political scientists per university teaching in facul- as a percentage of teaching in other ties of political the total teaching faculties science staff 1 1 64 (1.6%) 1 No political Literature science faculty 1 1 31 (3.1%) 2 2 55 (3.6%) 6 4 132 (3%) Communication sciences 3 3 62 (6.3%) 1 1 17 (5.9%) 8 (-) 1 No political Literature science faculty 4 2 45 (4.4%) Law, literature 2 2 39 (5.1%) 4 4 57 (7%) 1 68 (-) Communication sciences 15 15 155 (9.1%) 5 No political Sociology science faculty 7 7 58 (12%) 5 183

1 153

14 (-) 26 (3.8%) 2141 (7.15%)

Sociology 30

Adapted from Capano (2005).

As one can see observing Table 1, the current system shows a very uneven national distribution of political scientists. Let us take, for example, the two extreme cases: in Rome, with five universities, we only have 11 political scientists; in Bologna, with just one university, there are 28 political scientists. To explain this imbalance, we should refer to the historical conditions described in section I. The availability of new positions at the beginning of the 1970s caused everywhere an increase of teaching personnel, with an important difference. The old faculties of political science, top-heavy with lawyers and historians, gave free rein to the ideological and disciplinary biases against empirical political science, and ended up spawning more of their own. The faculty of Bologna (which is the most representative example of a school taking full advantage of the “window of opportunity”) was not created as an offshoot of the school of law and hence was totally autonomous. It used its autonomy in several ways. First, it avoided the negative impact of lawyers’ domination as shown by the fact that today of 80 full professors, only two are lawyers; in

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

264

the other faculties lawyers are never less than 25 percent. Second, Bologna made the curricular system introduced in 1968 immediately operational, therefore greatly increasing the number of new political science courses. Finally, it made a momentous, even though informal, decision still staunchly applied today. All the resources allotted to the faculty were to be divided into five equal parts: one for the needs of the first two-year curriculum, the other four to the following disciplinary groups: political economy, sociology, political history, politics and administration. Rather than nasty bickering and infighting, Bologna fostered cooperative disciplinary solidarity.

2.2

Areas of Teaching

Political Science in the Two-degree System The 2001 reform increased the possibility of including courses in political science in several degrees offered by different faculties. Currently political science is included in eight Bachelor degrees and 23 second degrees. Table 2: Faculties delivering courses in political science in the academic year 2004/05 Faculty Political science Sociology Law Literature Communications sciences Economics Italian language and culture Architecture Inter-faculties Education sciences Total

First degree 118 (143)a 7 5 3 3 3 1 0 5 1 146

Second degree 80 (126)a 5 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 91

Total 198 12 8 3 3 4 2 1 5 1 237

a Total number of courses delivered by political science faculties. Source: Capano (2005).

Data show a consistent expansion of political science courses. While in 1989 political science courses were part of the curricula of 57 degrees, now they are part of the curricula of 240 degrees.

Courses Taught In the past, there were only 20 labels for political science courses. After the reform, there are 140 different labels for political science courses taught in Italian faculties. This variety of labels notwithstanding, the main areas of

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

265

teaching can be classified as follows: Introduction to Political Science, Political Methodology, Political Theory, Comparative Politics, Italian Politics, International Relations, European Studies, Political Parties and Elections, Public Opinion, Political Communication, Local Government, Public Administration and Public Policy Analysis (Capano 2005). Four areas (Political Science, International Relations, Public Policy Analysis and Public Administration) add up to the 57 percent of the courses taught. It is worth emphasizing that courses in “Political Science” as such are taught only in half of the Italian political science faculties. Besides, 283 courses, which amount to the 67 percent of the total, are taught in 12 universities (Bologna, Catania, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Naples Federico II, Padua, Pavia, Rome Sapienza, Turin, Trento, Trieste). These data confirm the imbalance previously commented upon.

Textbooks A notable aspect of Italian political science developments in the 1970s was the effort of the scientific community to translate several US political science authors. As a consequence, many books and collections of essays or excerpts – the first of which is Antologia di scienza politica (1970) edited by Giovanni Sartori – were published in Italian and widely used as textbooks. In the 1980s and 1990s, Italian political scientists started to publish textbooks in Italian. The most widely used ones at the time were Manuale di scienza politica (1986), edited by Gianfranco Pasquino and L’analisi della politica, a collection of essays edited by Angelo Panebianco (1989). Currently, several textbooks exist. The following are the most widely used: Maurizio Cotta, Donatella Della Porta, Leonardo Morlino, Scienza Politica, 2001; a shorter version by the same authors is Fondamenti di scienza politica, 2001; Gianfranco Pasquino, Nuovo corso di scienza politica (2004, 1st edition 1997) and Donatella Della Porta, Introduzione alla scienza politica, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2002. Despite some significant differences, these textbooks show a consistent view of the discipline and its methods, approaches, and areas of research (Fasano 2005). The editorial policy of translating political science books, mainly written by US scholars, has been constantly pursued by Il Mulino, Bologna, which is the most important Italian publisher of academic books.

Doctoral (PhD) Courses Doctoral courses aim at training graduates for advanced scientific research or for professional appointments of the highest level. Access is available to holders of an Italian second degree or a comparable foreign degree; admission is subject to the passing of competitive exams; official length is mini-

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

266

mum three years; the PhD is to be concluded with the writing of an original dissertation. The oldest and best tested PhD programme in political science, which started in 1984, was offered by a consortium of Italian universities and had its headquarters at the University of Florence. Now it is based at the University of Bologna Forlì. Four more doctoral courses in Political Science have been established in recent years (based in Pavia, Milano, Siena). The most recently instituted doctoral programme is run by the Istituto di Studi Umanistici (ISU) of the University of Florence, which is one of the schools through which the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane (SUM) carries out its activity of advanced training and promotion of research.

2.3

Research

The main funding sources for academic research come from the Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR) through several calls for proposals (based on co-financing): • • • •

PRIN (Progetti di Ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale), the main funds for academic research projects. The aim is to concentrate the state funds on projects of key national interest; FIRB (Fondo per gli Investimenti per la Ricerca di Base), the fund for basic research (universities can apply in co-operation with other units); FAR (Fondo per le Agevolazioni alla Ricerca), the fund for applied research activities (in collaboration with industrial concerns); FISR (Fondo Integrativo Speciale per la Ricerca), the fund for research activities in cooperation with Regions and/or other state agencies (ministries, public research centres, etc.).

Other ministries give financial support for academic research, such as the Ministry for Industry and Trade (Ministero delle Attività Produttive) or the Ministry of Health. Another important source comes from the National Operational Programmes (Programmi Operativi Nazionali, PON), the fund for research and highly qualified training for Southern regions, co-financed by the European Social Fund. Financial support is given also to scientific and technological districts, which respond to the idea of involving in a limited area (generally a region or a province, or a municipality) where industries are interested and specialized in a specific sector (i.e., nanotechnologies, ICT, etc.), all the local partners interested in the development of that particular field (universities, public and private research agencies, specialized industries, banks, foundations, local governing agencies, etc.). There are also some other ministerial funds for helping academic research activities, especially in a perspective of internationalization, such as

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

267

training of high-qualified researchers, doctoral courses (joint doctoral courses), dissemination of scientific culture, and – more recently – joint research ventures. In addition, many universities allocate their own funds for research (Fondo di Ricerca di Ateneo); evaluation and allocation criteria and rules depend on each university and can be very different from one to another, making a comparative national overview impossible. According to the MIUR National Report 2004-2005 (see footnote 2), it is extremely difficult to clearly identify the proportion of funds for research in universities, because the available data are unified and include different sources of funding. Only the PRIN is specifically devoted to universities. The same difficulty arises when one tries to quantify the percentage of the private sector funds devoted to universities. Recently a shortage of funds and a change of criteria for the evaluation of PRIN research projects penalized the social sciences. EU funding sources are not adequately exploited due to the fact that research topics are pre-defined by the EU, and to the presence of organisational difficulties and obstacles to the creation of research networks between scholars of different disciplines. Besides, it is worth remembering that research in the social sciences has been autonomously funded only with the VI Programme. More conspicuous funding has been announced, with the next programme (VII). The creation of a New European Council for Research should improve this situation, allowing countries to submit research programmes autonomously defined. In the framework of the three development plans for the Italian university system (1998-2000, 2001-2003 and 2004-2006), the Ministry launched three calls for applications in interuniversity cooperation that were open to all Italian universities. Through its financial support to these internationalisation programmes, the Ministry’s aims not only at supporting the mobility of students and teachers, but also at promoting exchange of researchers on shared projects.

Research in Political Science: Areas of Research In 1989, Leonardo Morlino wrote the first account of the development of political science in post-war Italy. The following main areas of research were listed: Political Theory, Political Culture, Political Participation, Political Parties, Interests Groups, Collective Movements, Elections and Voting Behaviour, Political Elites, Political Institutions (legislatures and executives), Bureaucracy, Judicial Systems and Public Policy Analysis. Morlino (1989) provided a quantitative assessment of the distribution of research interests in the Italian political science community. Data were based on the number of publications by Italian political scientists in the different sub-fields in the

268

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

period 1945-1988. The main findings were the following. Out of a total of 2,018 publications scrutinized, approximately 33 percent were about political parties and elections, 26.3 percent about political institutions (including political elites, bureaucracy and the judicial system), 12.5 percent about political theory and foundations of political science, 9 percent about interest groups and collective movements, 7.4 about public policy analysis, 6.0 about comparative politics, 2.5 about general features of Italian politics. Morlino (1989) also examined the distribution of research interests over time. For instance, the study of political parties became a dominant theme in the 1960s and 1970s, and lost momentum in the following decade. Or, to make another example, the study of political elites was particularly prominent in the 1960s, even though some important works appeared in the following decade. The study of public policy was already prominent in comparative terms, despite the fact that this area was introduced late in the research agenda of Italian political scientists. The study of international relations was not taken into account in Morlino’s report. This is one of the fields where research interests of many scholars tend to concentrate today. To our knowledge no similar quantitative assessment has been produced recently. However, the study of political parties, electoral competition and voting behaviour increased its prominence, especially after the electoral reforms introduced in Italy in the past decade. The birth of the so-called Second Republic in the early 1990s gave rise to dozens of articles and books about institutional change, effects of the electoral rules on political competition, and entry of new political parties. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Cattaneo Institute, a research institute founded in 1965 and based in Bologna, started a research programme about elections and voting behaviour in Italy (Italian National Election Studies/ITANES), joined by political scientists from several Italian universities. The ITANES group conducted four national election surveys, which greatly contributed to the study of changes in public opinion and voting behaviour. It is well-known that in the past decades the study of political institutions became a mainstream in international political science. The new institutionalism revolution had some effects in Italy too, providing new analytical tools for the study of political organizations, legislatures, political executives, government formation. In the 1990s, the study of public administration and public policy expanded further, making this sub-field one of the most consolidated of Italian political science, as shown by the publication of several textbooks (Radaelli 2005). New areas of research emerged. The study of political communication made fast progress in exploring a variety of topics, such as electoral campaigns, impact of mass media and communication styles by political leaders. The other emerging area of study is EU institutions and policies. The progress of the first research area was fostered by the changing strategies of

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

269

political actors in electoral competition. The progress of the second one is obviously related to the growing importance of the EU and its influence on institutions and policies of the member states. According to the data collected by Morlino, the percentage of publications devoted to a discussion of the epistemological and methodological foundations of political science was relatively high. This mirrored the extensive methodological debates that animated political science up to the 1990s, centred around the dichotomy between the inductive/deductive method of theory construction and the use of qualitative/quantitative testing techniques. Currently those debates are certainly less frequent. Does it mean that the Italian political science community reached a common view of what should be considered, in Kuhnian terms, a “normal science”? From a methodological point of view, the use of comparative method, case studies and, to a lesser extent, statistics is widespread, even though the level of methodological sophistication is still rather low according to American standards. From the point of view of theory construction, the deductive formal rational choice theory which has been playing a major role in political science in the US context is currently cultivated by a minority of Italian political scientists.

The Quality of Research An important indicator of the quality of research is the publication in international refereed journals. Plümper and Radaelli (2004) collected data on the publications of Italian political scientists in international journals. The authors selected a set of 89 journals indexed in the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) social science citation index, examined over the period 19902002. The main findings are the following. Only four universities managed to publish at least 15 articles over a period of 13 years: Bologna (23), Turin (16), Florence (16) and Rome Sapienza (16). Articles published by Bologna academics also have the highest number of citations (93). However, only a minority of the articles published in political science journals have actually been written by political scientists, or academics with posts classified as “political science” by the official website of the Ministry of Higher Education (MIUR). Specifically, only 61 out of 291 articles can be related to Italian political science positions. The most visible contributions come from Bologna and Florence. Of the 23 articles produced by academics in Bologna, 18 were authored by professional political scientists while of the 16 produced by academics in Florence, 12 were authored by political scientists. The relative strength of the two universities reflects the presence of a larger community of political scientists. Unfortunately, nine universities with political science chairs have no publications in any of the journals surveyed for over 13 years. To sum up, this evidence suggests that the propensity of Italian political scientists to publish in English is low. As the authors note, the main reason is

270

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

related to the incentive structure of the Italian university system, where publications and citations in international journals have not been a prominent criterion of evaluation of university departments until recently. However, the recent introduction of quality assessment (QA) procedures and fund assignments gives some hope that this trend will be reversed in the near future. The results of the first assessment carried out by CIVR (see above) in 2004 give the following results for the social and political sciences area. The evaluation is based on a sample of self-selected products submitted to an international panel of reviewers. Out of a total of 372 works examined, 36.5 percent were in Political Science and Public Administration (other areas covered were Communication Sciences, Sociology and Anthropology). According to the evaluation panel, publications in social and political sciences show a dominance of books over articles in refereed journals. While articles are often published in other languages (60 percent), books are almost always in Italian (90 percent); historical subjects or approaches prevail over empirical research; the quality of research is not homogeneous, showing high or very high standards only in some areas.

3 Professional Communication The Italian Political Science Society (Società Italiana di Scienza Politica, SISP) is a non-profit association with the aim of promoting the development of political science in Italy, the scientific cooperation between political scientists in Italy and abroad and the coordination of Italian higher education institutions. The association was founded in 1973 as a sub-group of the Italian Political and Social Sciences Society. Giovanni Sartori was the first president of the association (1973-1975), followed by Norberto Bobbio (1976-1978) and Alberto Spreafico (1979-1981). In 1981, the sub-group became autonomous and took the name of Italian Political Science Society. Alberto Spreafico was the first president (until 1984), followed by Mario Stoppino (1985-1988), Luigi Bonanate (1989-1991), Giorgio Freddi (1992-1997), Leonardo Morlino (1998-2001), Maurizio Cotta (2001-2004). Fulvio Attinà is the current president. Current membership amounts to 290 members, 32 percent of whom are women. The association has its own website (http://www.sisp.it) and publishes an online newsletter, regularly sent to members by e-mail. Recently a project aimed at publishing Scienza Politica Italiana, an online publication about the state of the profession in Italy, has been launched. The official journal of the association is the Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (RISP). Founded by Giovanni Sartori in 1971, the Rivista Italiana di

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

271

Scienza Politica has substantively contributed to the development and consolidation of the discipline in Italy. In the past 30 years, several Italian political scientists joined Giovanni Sartori in editing the journal: among them Gianfranco Pasquino, Roberto D’Alimonte, Leonardo Morlino, Maurizio Cotta, Maurizio Ferrera, Sergio Fabbrini. Other political science journals are Teoria Politica founded in 1985 by a group of political scientists of the University of Torino, Quaderni di Scienza Politica founded in 1994 by a group of political scientists of the University of Pavia and The Rivista Trimestrale di Scienza dell’Amministrazione, which was transformed into a political science journal under the direction of Giorgio Freddi (1981-1991). Other journals focus on more specific research areas such as political communication (Comunicazione Politica), electoral behaviour (Quaderni dell’Osservatorio Elettorale) and public policy analysis (Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche). The affiliation to international political science associations can be individual or institutional. Some Italian political scientists are individual members of APSA, IPSA, epsNet, or other national political science associations. Speaking of institutional affiliations, active membership in the ECPR dates back to 1972. The University of Bologna was the first Italian member. Since then, Italian political scientists have been involved in ECPR activities, with several of them being elected to the executive committees and Giorgio Freddi, from the University of Bologna, chair from 1988 to 1994. Maurizio Cotta, Luigi Graziano, and Giorgio Freddi were among the Founding Members of the "Thematic Network in Political Science”, the frontrunner of epsNet. Participation in APSA is limited to the “Italian politics group”, run by US scholars, who have an interest in Italian politics, and joined by Italian political scientists. No Italian political scientist has ever occupied executive roles in APSA. Active participation in international conferences is improving, due to the increasing globalization of the profession.

4 The Future of Political Science in Italy Political science is now a smallish, tolerably well-organized compact guild. Clearly, a lot of territory has been covered, and one can be reasonably satisfied. However, the professional and scientific configuration of Italian political science has not yet evolved into a clear cut identity. Our no doubt fortified discipline is still burdened by legacies from the intellectual, cultural and institutional past, by a set of traditional behavioural and organisational patterns constituting a veritable path dependency.

272

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

From an intellectual perspective, we observe that of the roughly 190 Italian political scientists a significant number have not much to share with what we call empirical political science. Their paradigms are those of normative philosophy, legal doctrine, and history. The empirical political scientists are habitual frequenters of the professional meetings organized by IPSA, APSA, and ECPR. Our normative philosophers, legalistic institutionalists and historians, aware of the fact that they are not political scientists as internationally defined, never show up at those meetings. Political science is a young discipline. As all young disciplines, it needs to project a clear and recognizable identity, so far a difficult not yet completely solved problem. From a cultural perspective, another continuity with old traditions is evident. As all political scientists well know, Italian political culture is very fragmented and the people like their ideologies even better than their food and wine. Members of the political science community are no exception and, thus, we have a healthy ratio of “socialists of the chair” of Weberian memory. They are consistently, continuously and visibly engaged in political activity. Some years ago, four full professors were Members of Parliament; in all fairness, one must specify that two were leftists, and the other two right-wingers. If one considers that during the same period the full professors in political science were less than 40, one could paraphrase Winston Churchill by averring: “never before were so few represented by so many”. To all this we must add the venial sin of punditry, committed by some political scientists in all democratic countries. Likewise, our politically motivated colleagues can be read as columnists and can be seen on TV talk shows. In Italian public parlance, the term “political scientist” is almost never used; in its place, we observe now a general usage of the term “politologist”. The problem stems here from the fact that all participants in talk shows are referred to as politologists. When a political scientist participates, he is transformed into another politologist, which leads to an unnerving situation where the reputation of a politologist is not the result of a peer review, but of the acclamation of self-appointed non-academics. Again, all this does not facilitate the identity-building of the discipline. Finally, a few words about the institutional-organisational perspective. As we have seen, the discipline is characterized by an exceedingly uneven geographical distribution. In some universities, political science has managed to build solid and defensible bridgeheads. In others, it serves a little more than an ornamental function. In some of the most strategically and logistically important areas (such as Rome), the discipline practically does not exist as a potential source of political-administrative change, and of the training and socialization of future administrative leaders. In sum, if the discipline holds its own with dignity from a research point of view, it does not hold much influence in the political and administrative critical spots.

The Current State of Political Science in Italy

273

The problems we have been discussing so far do not lend themselves to easy solutions, especially if attempts to change come from inside the national system. These authors believe – also on the basis of the very rewarding performance of their department – that a problem-solving approach of these critical areas could be better aimed and more capable of positive impacts if internationally guided. One of the reasons why we think the launching of a European Political Science Association – organized as a federation of national associations - is a crucial exigence blows from thinking that it could become a forum for informal, professionally authoritative, utterly non-bureaucratic standard setting. Such standards should give suggestions on which positions to take in the matters of: • • • •

Training of young scholars, hopefully leading to more standardized curricula in methodological terms and international evaluation of PhD dissertations; Definition – somewhat soft, but still a definition – of the methodological and theoretical borders with neighbouring disciplines; Evaluation of individuals and organizations from the triple perspective of teaching, research, and university management; The formulation of a common plan aimed at training political scientists for higher professional roles in the policy process.

It is from a truly European effort, aimed to give a reasonably acceptable layout to the issues listed above, that European national experiences can be encouraged to develop the links, solidarity and common criteria shared by the different intellectual and geographical components of the American Political Science Association.

References Battegazzorre, Francesco / Luciano Fasano / Giuseppe Di Palma (2005): “Come insegnare la scienza politica: una discussione sui manuali e la loro utilità”, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 3: 525-556. Capano, Giliberto (2005): “Abbiamo quello che meritiamo? L’insegnamento della scienza politica nelle Università Italiane”, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 3: 495-524. Cotta, Maurizio / Donatella Della Porta / Leonardo Morlino (2001a): Scienza Politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Cotta, Maurizio / Donatella Della Porta / Leonardo Morlino (2001b): Fondamenti di scienza politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Della Porta, Donatella (2002): Introduzione alla scienza politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Morlino, Leonardo (ed.) (1989): Guide agli studi di scienze sociali in Italia. Scienza Politica, Torino: Fondazione Agnelli. Panebianco, Angelo (ed.) (1989): L’analisi della politica, Bologna: Il Mulino.

274

Giorgio Freddi / Daniela Giannetti

Pasquino, Gianfranco (2004, 1st edition 1997): Nuovo corso di scienza politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Pasquino, Gianfranco (ed.) (1986): Manuale di scienza politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Plümper, Thomas / Claudio M. Radaelli (2004): “Publish or perish? Publications and citations of Italian political scientists in international political science journals, 1990-2002”, Journal of European Public Policy 11 (6): 1112-1127. Radaelli, Claudio M. (2005): “Lo studio e l’insegnamento delle politiche pubbliche”, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 2: 349-360. Sartori, Giovanni (ed.) (1970): Antologia di scienza politica, Bologna: Il Mulino. Sola, Giorgio (1984): “Scienza e teoria nei padri fondatori della scienza politica italiana”, in Luigi Graziano (ed.): La scienza politica italiana: materiali per un bilancio, Milano, Angeli.

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands Bob Reinalda

1 Introduction 1.1

Historical Background1

Dutch political science claims early roots. In 1613, Daniel Heinsius became Professor of Politices at Leiden University. The various sciences, bearing a relation to the state, were then regarded as one body of “scientia politica”. During the 19th century, however, the juridical-legalistic point of view began to predominate the theory of the state, and between roughly 1840 and World War II Dutch universities practically neglected the existence of political science proper. Immediately after the war, the University of Amsterdam established a new Faculty of Political and Social Sciences. Its two founding fathers were both historians, but as early as the 1930s one of them, Jan Romein, had become well acquainted with American political science. They expected political science to remedy the political unawareness demonstrated by the Dutch population during the occupation years and to enrich the training of civil servants and diplomats. However, the left-wing origins of the Amsterdam Faculty, which was called the ‘red Faculty’, and the fact that at that time the great majority of diplomats and public administrators, who had often worked in the Dutch East Indies, had studied law in Leiden meant that the latter could not easily identify with the new discipline and its ambitions and kept aloof. In line with the characteristics of pillarization, chairs of political science were established at the two universities with a religious background, the

1

This section is largely based on an overview of Dutch political science I wrote together with Bob Lieshout (cf. Lieshout and Reinalda 2001). Other overviews are (Rijpperda Wierdsma and Hintzen 1950), (De Vree 1976), (Daalder 1991) and (Thomassen 1996). I would like to thank Bob Lieshout for his helpful comments on the draft of this article.

276

Bob Reinalda

(Catholic) University of Nijmegen (1950) and the (Calvinist) Free University of Amsterdam (1953). The holders of the first three chairs in political science in the Netherlands, established between 1948 and 1953, had themselves studied law. It was only in 1963, with the appointment of Hans Daudt in Amsterdam, that the first professor of political science, who had himself studied political science, was appointed. The appointment of other political scientists, in Leiden Hans Daalder (1963) and Arend Lijphart (1968), and in Nijmegen Andries Hoogerwerf (1969), soon followed. This new generation of professors signalled the beginning of the development of political science as a separate discipline, with its own subject matter and research methods. At that time, most Dutch political scientists followed the example of their American and English colleagues by embracing behaviouralism and focusing on electoral studies. The Free University of Amsterdam established a full-fledged programme in political science in 1955, the University of Nijmegen in 1969. Leiden had to wait until the 1980s, partly due to the fact that political science was part of the Law Faculty. The 1960s may be regarded as the period of consolidation of the new discipline. This applies not only to the universities themselves but also to the Dutch educational system more generally. In 1960, the Academic Council established an advisory Sub-council for Sociology and Political Science. In 1967, political science was recognized by the government as an academic discipline and incorporated into the Academic Statute, which then regulated educational programmes at Dutch universities. Simultaneously a process of professionalization had been furthered by a common organization. The Dutch Political Science Association was founded in 1950 as the “Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap der Politiek” (literally, the Dutch Circle for the Science of Politics). At first political science teachers were a minority, as other members were constitutional lawyers, economists, historians and sociologists, as well as journalists and politicians. The members met a few times a year to read and discuss papers on subjects related to political science. Papers on public administration and international relations, however, were discussed in two other bodies, the “Instituut voor Bestuurswetenschappen” (Institute for Administrative Sciences), established in 1939, and the “Genootschap voor Internationale Zaken” (Society for International Affairs), which in 1947 had begun to publish the monthly journal Internationale Spectator. The foundation of the Dutch Political Science Association had been stimulated by UNESCO and the International Political Science Association (IPSA). The latter had been set up in 1949 both to bring together political scientists from various countries and to sharpen the outlines of political science as a science distinct from other disciplines such as law, history and sociology. Jan Barents, since 1948 the holder of the chair of political science at the University of Amsterdam, was a member of the IPSA Executive Committee between 1949 and 1955. In line with the UNESCO and IPSA programmes, Barents together with his colleagues De Jong and

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

277

Schlichting, from the Free University of Amsterdam and the University of Nijmegen respectively, acted as co-founders of the Dutch Association. With the aid of the Dutch government, and subsidies from the Rockefeller Foundation and UNESCO, the second IPSA congress took place at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague in 1952. In 1954, the Dutch Association joined the IPSA. In 1965, the Dutch Association started the publication of a three-monthly journal for political science, named Acta Politica. The circumstance that, by then, some hundreds of students had graduated in the new science suggested the need for the community of Dutch political scientists to possess a scientific journal of its own, and the Association saw it as its responsibility to provide practical support for its publication. The first volume offered an overview of the various sub fields of political science in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Association became known for the organization of its annual Politicologenetmaal in the spring. This is a scientific congress taking exactly 24 hours (“etmaal”), from Thursday 2:00 p.m. to Friday 2:00 p.m., with workshops and plenary sessions. The Association also started organizing mini-conferences in the autumn, dedicated to topical issues in politics. In the course of the years, political scientists began more and more to dominate these congresses and mini-conferences. Finally, the Dutch Association began to provide an annual Political Science Award (“Jaarprijs Politicologie”) for the best PhD thesis in the field. Later, on the initiative of Acta Politica, an annual Daniel Heinsius Award was added for the best Master thesis. The end of the 1960s and the 1970s witnessed a period of fierce conflict in Dutch political science. Dissatisfied with the results and relevance of behaviouralism in general and electoral studies in particular, students launched a debate on the legitimacy of the established ways in which the discipline was practiced. This debate included such issues as the relationship between political science and politics, the contents of the political science curriculum and the scope of political science. Soon the discipline was in total disarray. It certainly did not help that many of the major protagonists were driven by strong personal animosities. These troubles, which lasted more than a decade, seriously affected teaching in political science. The single most important consequence was that political scientists specializing in public administration no longer felt at home in political science departments or in the Association. Thus in 1973 a separate professional association was established for public administration (the “Vereniging voor Bestuurskunde”; Association for Public Administration), and three years later, at the University of Twente, the first separate department of public administration and public policy was established. The universities of Leiden, Rotterdam and Nijmegen soon followed. This added to the already existing characteristic of Dutch political science. Where in many other countries public administration is a part of political science, in the same way that comparative politics and electoral studies are,

278

Bob Reinalda

in the Netherlands it stands more or less apart, even when quite a few staff members of public administration departments have been trained as political scientists. In 2001, the department of political science and public administration at the Free University of Amsterdam, the long-term exception to the rule, was split into two separate departments, due to internal difficulties. Another consequence of the troubles and the separation between political science and public administration was that membership of the Dutch Political Science Association has remained relatively small, notwithstanding its effort to also organize political scientists working outside academic institutions. When, at the beginning of the 1980s, the conflicts finally subsided, there existed five political science departments in the Netherlands: at the University of Amsterdam (by far the largest department), the University of Leiden, the University of Nijmegen, the Free University of Amsterdam and the Erasmus University of Rotterdam (the youngest one, where political science and public administration were established during the 1970s). The discipline was left not much time to recuperate from “the troubles”. From the middle of the 1980s onwards, Dutch universities, and their humanities and social science departments in particular, were year after year confronted with severe cutbacks as a function of the retrenchment policies of successive governments. As a matter of fact, these cutbacks have continued to the present day. Whatever the benefits of the Dutch “polder-model”, these consensus-oriented consultations are entirely absent as far as the universities are concerned, government spending on higher education having been drastically reduced. As a result of the first wave of cutbacks, announced in 1986, the Rotterdam political science department was closed. An important by-product of these cutbacks was a reinforcement of the fragmentation of the discipline. Since political science has been a comparatively small discipline, and seriously tainted with its rebellious past, it was not able to muster enough political clout at the national level in order to protect its position. The four remaining departments were left to their own devices to fight for survival in their respective universities. Some 20 years later, it may be concluded that Dutch political science has more or less survived the twin onslaughts of radicalism and retrenchment. The four departments are, it is true, considerably smaller than in the early 1980s, but political science has clearly found its own academic “niche”. It has evolved into a mature discipline. Relations between the departments are still rather fragile, however, and it is significant that the attempts in the 1990s to establish a single national research school for political science ended in failure. After this debacle, most political science research groups have joined the Netherlands Institute for Government (NIG), the national research school for public administration.

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

1.2

279

Current Developments

The two major current developments are the machinery developed for quality assessment as well as the introduction of an accreditation system and a threecycle degree structure in 2002 as results of the Bologna Process. In 1997, the major critique of the quality assurance committee (“visiatiecommissie”) for political science was the existence of a large variety of educational programmes and an obvious lack of common characteristics. The common opinion about the core of a curriculum was not explicitly expressed by the departments or the National Association, according to this committee, and this added to the difficulties in attracting attention from potential students, employers and society in general (Report Quality Assurance Committee 1997: 7). The system of quality assurance in the Netherlands started during the second half of the 1980s in an effort to combine governmental financial cutbacks and incentives for quality improvement. The first quality assessment committee of 1987 was appointed by the minister of education, but in order to keep the government at distance later committees were appointed by the private Association of Cooperating Dutch Universities (VSNU, “Vereniging Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten”). The disciplines covered by the respective quality assurance committees for political science were “sociology, political science and public administration” (1987), “administrative, policy and political sciences” (1992), “political science” (Leiden, Amsterdam, Nijmegen) and “political science and public administration” (Free University) (1997) and “political science” (University of Amsterdam, Free University, Leiden and Nijmegen) (2004).2 In 2004, the committee concluded that, thanks to an initiative of the Dutch Political Science Association, the four political science programmes now had more in common with regard to the core of political science teaching. The committee, however, remained critical about the vague border between political science and public administration. It preferred to either integrate public administration into political science, or create development opportunities for two clearly separated entities, rather than a continuation of the present situation (Report quality assurance committee, 2004, 27). It may be concluded that quality assessment has been a practice of twenty years and that by now political science and public administration are considered different fields. The Bologna Process may be regarded as an effort to harmonize higher education all over Europe in the context of global competition. It started with 2

Another form of public assessment is the yearly guide which is published to help future students choosing an institution of higher education. This guide (Keuzegids hoger onderwijs) is based on the opinions of students and compares the various departments. Political science and public administration are sub sections of the general heading “Law and Government”.

280

Bob Reinalda

the 1999 Bologna Declaration and resulted in the political decision to create a European Higher Education Area which aims to enhance mobility between, and cooperation of, European universities. Action lines defined in the Bologna Declaration are adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, adoption of a two-cycle system, establishment of a system of credits, such as ECTS, promotion of mobility, of European cooperation in quality assurance and of the European dimensions in higher education (cf. Reinalda/ Kulesza 2005: 9). The Declaration was followed by regular ministerial meetings involving nearly all European countries, both European Union and nonEU members. In the Netherlands, the European Higher Education Area resulted in legislation introducing an accreditation system from August 2002 and a Bachelor-Master structure from September 2002. The new accreditation system that allows degree programmes to be checked for compliance with certain quality criteria was set up in August 2002. Granting accreditation of degree programmes is the responsibility of the newly founded Dutch Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO, “Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie Organisatie”). Its procedure is based on a report by external assessment panels or agencies. Accreditation is a precondition for government funding of a degree programme, for the right to issue officially recognized degree certificates and for the approval of grants or loans to students following the programme. The introduction of the new accreditation and degree systems brought the government in a position to radically change the academic study programmes. One of the accompanying objectives is to reduce the supply of Bachelor programmes by restructuring its nomenclature, and it is expected that various Master programmes will prove to be unrealistic in the sense that they will not draw sufficient numbers of students. One of the negative conclusions of the introduction of the accreditation system is that it is very bureaucratic and costly. The costs are two to three times as high as in the original system. As a result of this new situation the quality assurance section of the cooperating universities (VSNU) was transformed into a separate institution and is now known as QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities). QANU offers universities external assessments of academic education and research programmes through peer review by an assessment panel as well as support for submissions of applications for accreditation from universities. The 2004 quality assessment of political science was accompanied by a simultaneous procedure to submit applications for accreditation of the new Bachelor and Master programmes in political science. The four Dutch departments, offering Bachelor and Master programmes in political science, were granted their accreditations. The Bologna Process resulted in the Netherlands in the introduction of a three-cycle degree system (Bachelor, Master and Doctorate) from September 2002. Furthermore, the European Credits Transfer System (ECTS) was

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

281

adopted as a way of quantifying periods of study. A Bachelor programme (the first cycle) requires the completion of 180 credits, which is equivalent to three years of study. Although a Master programme (the second cycle) may require 60, 90 or 120 credits, it is government policy that regular Master programmes in the social sciences will require 60 ECTS (or one year), with the exception of research Master programmes, which may be 90 or 120 ECTS. The quality assessment committee in political science is in favour of Master programmes of at least 90 ECTS, but that remains a fantasy given the government’s position (Report quality assurance committee, 2004, 28). The third cycle (Doctorate) leads to a doctor’s degree. In the Netherlands, the minimum amount of time required to complete a Doctorate is four years. Although there have been differences in timing with regard to the introduction of the new degree system, it may be said that by now the four Dutch departments of political science have introduced the Bachelor-Master structure of a three-year Bachelor, a one-year regular Master programme and a four-year Doctorate programme (in total: 3+1+4). Recommendations from the European Conference of National Political Science Associations (ECNA) on the basic requirements of a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science have played a role in the discussions about the Dutch Bachelor programmes. The requirement that students should follow courses in political science with a value of at least 90 out of 180 ECTS credits (Reinalda and Kulesza 2005, 9495, 223-4) was met by all four. Thanks to the Dutch Political Science Association, an agreement was reached that the completion of each Dutch Bachelor programme in political science allows students access to each other’s regular Master programmes. Whereas Leiden and the Free University of Amsterdam opted for English-taught Master programmes, the University of Amsterdam and Nijmegen decided to stick to Dutch.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

In the Netherlands, there are four departments of political science, which in October 2004 hosted a total number of 1,927 Bachelor students and 87 Master students. The largest numbers of students are found at the University of Amsterdam and Leiden University. The two smaller departments are those of the Free University of Amsterdam and the Radboud University Nijmegen (which is the new name of the former (Catholic) University of Nijmegen). Table 1 presents their numbers of students between 2000 and 2004. Note that

Bob Reinalda

282

before 2003 the traditional system is mentioned (with total numbers of students) and from 2003 the Bachelor-Master system.3 Table 1: Bachelor and Master students in political science in the Netherlands 2000-2004 University Univ. of Amsterdam Leiden Free Univ. of A’dam Nijmegen Total

Source:

2000

2001

2002 840

2003 BA 898

2003 MA 2

2004 BA 875

2004 MA 27

792

790

319 263

337 274

435 297

539 270

1 12

618 276

13 29

103 1,477

99 1,500

114 1,686

137 1,844

13 28

158 1,927

18 87

www.vsnu.nl, Ontwikkeling WO per opleiding.xls, as found on 13 September 2005. The Master student of Nijmegen in 2002 was added to the total number of students of that year.

Table 2: Bachelor and Master students in public administration in the Netherlands 2000-2004 University

2000

2001

2002

Leiden Utrecht Rotterdam Nijmegen Tilburg Twente Free Univ. of A’dama Total

404 190 484 137 61 460

406 251 498 133 57 431

411 293 503 143 63 417

2003 BA 450 361 554 150 77 409

2003 MA

17

2004 BA 445 401 542 142 118 376

25 1,736

1,776

1,830

2,001

42

2004 MA

32

45 2,024

77

a

There are no numbers given for public administration at the Free University of Amsterdam, because they were counted as political science before the two sections split up. In 2004, according to another statistics referring to September (‘Vooraanmeldingen’), the Free University of Amsterdamhad 150 Bachelor students in political science and 113 in public administration. Source: www.vsnu.nl, Ontwikkeling WO per opleiding.xls, as found on 13 September 2005.

In order to provide a more complete picture of Dutch students in the fields of both political science and public administration I will also present the student numbers of public administration. The total number of Bachelor students in public administration at six universities in the Netherlands (Leiden, Utrecht, Rotterdam, Nijmegen, Tilburg and Twente) is slightly higher than in political science in 2004: 2,024. The total number of Master students in that year is somewhat lower: 77. By now, the largest departments are Rotterdam, Leiden, 3

It is very difficult to find comparable data, both in the official statistics for the Netherlands and in the reports of the quality assessment committees.

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

283

Twente and Utrecht. Table 2 shows the developments between 2000 and 2004. I did not find topical data about staff numbers, and knowing myself how many corrections are required before these kinds of data are comparable, I will use the data provided by the quality assessment committee for political science of 1997. Although these data are somewhat outdated they do provide an impression of the relative differences between the departments of political science. It should be noted that the Free University of Amsterdam has two departments (political science and public administration) as of 2001. Table 3 shows the staff numbers (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, other scientific staff and PhD students) in the mid-1990s. Table 3: Scientific staff at the Dutch departments of political science in the mid-1990s University

Professors

Univ. of Amsterdam Leiden Free Univ. of A’dam Nijmegen

Source:

5

Associate Professors 8

Assistant Professors 27

Other Scien- PhD Students tific Staff 2 8

Totals

3 6

4 3

12 15

2 1

8 3

32 28

2

1

6

3

7

19

50

Report quality assurance committee (1997: 27).

The quality assessment report of 1997 also provided some information about the student/staff ratio at the time. There is a remarkable difference in the number of students per FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) for Education between the University of Amsterdam (79.1) and Nijmegen (18.8). The student/staff ratio at the four departments in the academic year 1995/96 is presented in Table 4. Table 4: Student/staff ratio, 1995/96 University

FTEs for education

Univ. of Amsterdam Leiden Free University Nijmegen

Source:

Numbers of students

Numbers of degrees

16,3

1,289

208

10,3 9 5,8

403 500 107

85 69 23

Report quality assurance committee (1997: 27).

Numbers of Number of student per degrees per FTE FTE for educa- for education tion 79,1 12,8 39,1 55,5 18,8

8,8 7,7 4

Bob Reinalda

284

2.2

Degree System and Admission Regulations

Until 2002, the Dutch degree system was based on an initial study programme of four years, followed by a possibility to obtain a doctorate degree. The initial programme started with a first year meant for introductory courses and selection by the end of that year (called “propedeuse”). The following three years featured as required components further courses as well as training in research methodology and completion of a thesis. Graduates obtained the degree of “doctorandus” (abbreviated to drs), which is regarded to be an equivalent of a Master degree, and were entitled to go for the highest degree, a doctorate. Since 2002, as explained above, there is a three-cycle degree system of a three-year Bachelor programme (which still includes the oneyear “propedeuse”), a one-year Master programme, and a four-year Doctorate programme in which the title of ‘doctor’ will be obtained (abbreviated to dr).4 The system of majors and minors is available in Dutch universities, but was not common in political science until recently. Since 2005-2006 Nijmegen offers its students the opportunity to use 24 ECTS, or four optional courses, for a minor elsewhere in the university or at other universities. Leiden offers various major-minor combinations with public administration, anthropology, history, psychology and philosophy. Apart from new legal arrangements, a new attitude towards academia is arising.5 Since the 1970s, the core of governmental politics towards universities was based on the idea that college education should become available to all, that is also for those from the lower income classes. This ‘democratization’ process was quite successful in view of the rising number of students, but in combination with governmental cutbacks on university funding and students’ grants the process also ended in overly full classes, unmotivated teachers and quite a few college dropouts. Official government policy is that students study 40 hours a week and that universities offer programmes based on a 40-hours study, but in reality many students work 20 hours or more per week, due to their lack of money. Whereas universities in the United States are good in making students focus on their study and stimulate them to perform even better, Dutch universities have been obliged to focus primarily on weak students, in particular by organisational measures to support them. The other side of this coin was that academic programmes became rather scholastic. Despite all measures, students blame high dropout figures for first year students not on lack of motivation but on insufficient supervision during their first year, or on insufficient information about the courses beforehand. The government wants to halt the dropout trend by publishing comparative data 4 5

See www.nuffic.nl for an explanation of the Dutch education system: The Education System in the Netherlands. This paragraph is based on Duursma (2005).

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

285

on the achievements of universities (in the hope that students will be more critical in their choices of institutions) and a financial system that is directly linked to the ability of universities to keep students and to improve the percentage of students who finish a programme. University initiatives to alter the trend are the establishment of “honours programmes”, aimed at students who want to learn more than is possible under the regular curriculum, and of so-called “university colleges”, which select their Dutch and foreign students by means of intake interviews, offer them a live on campus as well as a culturally-broad programme of studies deviating from the traditional. Furthermore, the University of Leiden began experimenting with various selection techniques. Although “selection at the gate” has been taboo in the Netherlands, it is now regarded as a step that may help students to strengthen their motivation, also in relation to their future position in a knowledge-based economy. A further incentive discussed by the government is that universities that offer ‘top education’ will be allowed to do this for a higher fee than the legally-established university tuition fee of approximately €1,500 a year. Most students embark on university education immediately after leaving secondary school, typically at the age of 18 or 19. In fact, two kinds of students are to be found at Dutch universities. This is related to the binary system of universities. Higher education in the Netherlands is offered at two types of universities: research universities (universiteiten) and universities of professional education (hogescholen). The latter tend to be more practically oriented than research universities. Each type has its preparatory form of secondary education. Students who finished the so-called “University Preparatory Education” path of four years (VWO, Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs) have direct access to Bachelor programmes at research universities. After having finished their Bachelor programme, they have access to Master programmes. This is the first and largest group. The second group consists of students who have followed another path and enter research universities not from below but from aside. In secondary education, they may have followed a shorter secondary education path (of five or four years) and, in higher education, they opted for the universities of professional education. However, they have access to a Bachelor programme in research universities if they have successfully completed the first year of a Bachelor programme of a university of professional education. Graduates with a Bachelor degree of a university of professional education have access to a Master programme in research universities, but only upon they have completed additional requirements. Special programmes for catching up − often of one year − are organized in which they take second or third year courses from the regular Bachelor programme. The general problem felt with many students coming from universities of professional education is that they are less equipped with an academic attitude and lack skills in research methodology.

Bob Reinalda

286

2.3

Areas of Teaching

The latest quality assessment committee concluded that the four Dutch programmes in political science are rather similar. There is little variation with regard to courses, the vision of political science and the relationship between education and research. All four Bachelor programmes offer courses in political theory (history of political ideas or political philosophy), methodology (both quantitative and qualitative), the political system of the Netherlands and of the European Union, comparative politics (national political systems), international relations, public administration and policy analysis, as well as elements such as political economy, political sociology or political history (Report quality assessment committee 2004: 13). Variation is strongest in the ways in which other disciplines and courses are fed into the curriculum (ibid.: 27). At the University of Amsterdam, the first year’s Bachelor programme introduces political science with courses in political structures and processes, public administration and policy analysis, political theories, epistemology and methodology, international relations, and political and economic history. During the second and third year, students take courses on development of political science, research methodology, political economy and legal order according to political science, plus a core module, which allows some specialization (political theory, European politics, public administration or international relations). Students in Leiden start with introductions in almost all subfields of political science, such as international relations, political behaviour, political philosophy and comparative politics. This continues during the second year, when they also take courses meant to support political science, such as public administration, history, law and economics. Political science students at the Free University of Amsterdam have their first year in common with communication science, public administration, anthropology, and sociology students. This implies that their focus is on social sciences and general research methodologies, apart from courses that discuss political problems. During the second and third year, students take regular political science courses. The Nijmegen programme is organized on a semester basis with themes, such as, introduction to political science, national governance, European governance, comparative governance, economic, administrative and political systems compared, and governance, rationality and justice. All Bachelor programmes end with a thesis, often embedded in a broader defined project. There are substantial reasons to make the thesis part of a thematic project, but also very procedural ones. The projects are set up to provide students with enough guidance and social control to finish their thesis in time. There are various ways in which students may profit from international experience. All four programmes offer students possibilities to study at a

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

287

foreign university for a while through programmes such as Socrates (Europe) or ISEP (USA), or through bilateral agreements. In all cases, there is organisational and financial support for students. To attract foreign students in the Bachelor phase, some courses − either extra or regular ones − are taught in English. Since September 2005, both Leiden and the Free University of Amsterdam will continue on this road, because their Master programmes will be in English. This will enable them to attract both Dutch and foreign students. In the Netherlands, a general imbalance has existed between incoming and outgoing students in political science, as less Dutch students go abroad than foreign students visit the Netherlands. The introduction of the BachelorMaster system has had a negative impact on outgoing student mobility because the new programmes are tightly organized and leave little opportunity for going abroad. The best chances during the Bachelor phase are in the first semester of the third year, but students seldom find similar programmes at foreign universities. Strictly-programmed one-year Master programmes leave no room for student exchange. Remaining possibilities are summer universities or scholarships for continued studies at a foreign university after the Master degree. So far, staff mobility has been rather limited as well. The Master programmes in political science are composed of courses meant to deepen general political science topics and projects in which students can focus on a specialization and write their Master thesis. The Master programme of the University of Amsterdam offers students many courses from which they may choose as well as several final projects, in which they specialize on their topic and write their thesis. Leiden has three Master programmes: a Master of Arts in Political Science, a Master of Arts in International Relations and Diplomacy, and a research Master programme meant to prepare for a doctorate: MPhil Political Science Research: Institutional Analysis. The Nijmegen Master programme consists of classical political thought, research methodology, parallel courses on power in international relations, national political systems as well as political theory, current debates and a thesis project in either political theory, international relations or comparative politics. Most literature in Dutch political science is in English. A few Dutchlanguage handbooks or introductions to political science have been edited or written but they are seldom used on a national basis. For the most part these are used only at the author’s own institution or temporarily elsewhere. English-language introductions are preferred, also because Dutch publishers are somewhat reluctant to publish books in political science, given the fact that both political science and public administration are relatively small studies.

Bob Reinalda

288

2.4

Research

Electoral studies are the most successful example of an institutionalized cooperation between political scientists from different Dutch universities. Initiated in 1955 under the auspices of the Dutch Political Science Association, and sponsored by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research, the collection of data began with the results of parliamentary elections in the town of Nieuwer-Amstel. The study, published in 1963, intended to contribute to a better understanding of Dutch political life and to enable comparisons with the results of American and British electoral studies. In 1967, the Free University of Amsterdam organized the first national parliamentary election studies. From 1971 onwards, these studies have been a common project of various universities. The Dutch Electoral Research Foundation SKON (Stichting Kiezersonderzoek Nederland) is the formal successor of the interuniversity working groups that were responsible for the parliamentary election studies between 1971 and 1989. SKON is a wellestablished institution taking care of Dutch election studies. Government policies encouraged the establishment of research programmes for disciplines during the 1980s. These programmes were mostly determined by local faculty or university conditions, and in the beginning often functioned as ‘umbrella’ constructions. They slowly evolved into more coherent but still mainly locally-conditioned programmes, also because of the necessity to attract official funding and to meet the criteria of the new system of quality assessment which has functioned since the early 1990s. The assessment of the research quality committee, which published its report in 2002, dealt with several programmes in public administration, political science and communication science in the Netherlands, assessed eight political science programmes. Interestingly enough, some of these programmes are not based in departments of political science but of public administration. The assessed political science research programmes at the various universities (including the numbers of full-time equivalents for research in 2000) were: • • • • • •

The Establishment and Working of Political Institutions and Democratic Processes (Leiden; 7.4 FTE); Values, Visions and Political Regimes (Leiden; 3.8 FTE); The Dynamics of Political Change and Adaptation in the International Order (Leiden; 1.6 FTE); Political Science (Rotterdam; 1.1 FTE) (this focuses on European Politics and Politics and Business); Rethinking Politics, Transnational Society, Network Interaction, and Democratic Governance (University of Amsterdam; 14.3 FTE); Politics, Policies, and Society (Free University of Amsterdam; 2.7 FTE);

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

• •

289

Political Change (Nijmegen; 8.3 FTE); Public Administration and Social Environments / Legitimacy of the Democratic and Social Constitutional State / Political Legitimacy in the Netherlands and the European Union (University of Twente; 2.8 FTE).

The total number of FTEs of these eight programmes is 42, which is far less than the 99.57 of the twelve public administration programmes assessed in the same report. According to the quality assessment committee the research programmes demonstrate disciplinary quality and public relevance. Publications had become much more international and the level of productivity had risen. “This is also true for those programmes that suffered a significant (Political Science) or slight (Public Administration) decline in resources” (Report Quality Assessment Committee 2002: 9). Here, a weakness of the political science discipline occurs. Its position in financial resources, in particular through the ‘second flow of funds’, that is research funding provided by the government for allocation by intermediary organizations such as the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Scientific Research (NWO), is low. Factors here are the small size of the discipline, animosities between the departments, the split between political science and public administration, the inability of the Dutch Political Science Association to coordinate a common strategy, and, finally, a shared position of political science and public administration in the internal structure of NWO with the well-organized law discipline. Research schools were founded in the early 1990s both at faculty or university level (not a viable option for political science given the fact that none of the individual departments has the critical mass for such a school) and at national level. In 1993, the “Interuniversity Research School for Political Science and International Relations” Polybios began to function, but in 1998 it appeared that the political science departments lacked the willingness to continue their cooperation in Polybios. This was the end of Polybios. After this debacle, most political science research groups joined the “Netherlands Institute for Government” (NIG), the national research school for public administration. Some political science research groups joined other research schools, such as the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, the Amsterdam School of Communications Research and the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies. The Netherlands Institute for Government had evolved out of a partnership between several public administration departments, the aim of which is to offer advanced courses to PhD students. This collaboration has extended into a common research programme. In 1996, the NIG was formally recognized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences as a research school for a period of five years. In 2001, the Academy extended this recognition for a further period of five years. Members of the NIG are the relevant faculties of the universities of Delft, En-

290

Bob Reinalda

schede (University of Twente), Leiden, Nijmegen, Rotterdam (Erasmus University), Tilburg, Utrecht and the Free University of Amsterdam. Hence, the obvious one missing with regard to political science is the University of Amsterdam. In 1996, the NIG research programme started from the practical situation that a substantial number of scholars of public administration and public policy focused on institutions. The growing interest in government institutions coincided with a resurgence of institutional analysis in the social sciences, as well as in the study of law. The NIG research programme focuses on analysing the effects, the changes and the formation of government institutions, which the programme tries to understand both as resources and as constraints. The programme reflects the multidisciplinary roots of research and encourages research that adopts a comparative approach. When in 1999 the former Polybios members joined the NIG programme, they added expertise in two areas, namely (1) the effects, the formation and change of supranational institutions and (2) state-society relations and changes of government institutions (NIG 2001: 14-5). The NIG research programme for 20012005 is called ‘From Government to Governance: effects, change and formation of government institutions’. It aims to contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of government institutions and it seeks to strengthen the applied component of the discipline of public administration, public policy and political science. The five main research projects are Governance in the European Union, political representation and legitimacy, institutional rearrangement of the public domain, public management, and knowledge society. During the 1980s, the training of PhD students had become a topic of institutional and national design. A new category of faculty members was introduced: the AIO or junior researcher (Assistent In Opleiding). An AIO is supposed to complete a dissertation in four years, to do some teaching (very little in the first year but progressively more in the years thereafter) and to receive training in a research school. The position of AIOs is somewhat ambivalent, because their salary is curtailed as a compensation for the training they get during the first two years. In this respect, they are regarded as students. However, their salaries are paid from the research budget and their performance counts heavily in the assessment of the research quality of departments. Recruitment has gradually become part of research programmes, both at faculty or university level and at national level. Before this new arrangement, training and recruitment had been a personal matter between the professor and the PhD student. The number of NIG AIOs during the early 1990s was: 1990: 5; 1991: 10; 1992: 16; 1993: 23; 1994: 8; 1995: 7; 1996: 17. The total number of AIOs in political science and public administration in the Netherlands (both NIG and elsewhere) during the second half of the 1990s was between 40 and 50. Because AIOs hold temporary positions, they

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

291

tend to be the first victims of budgetary cutbacks. Table 5 shows the positions achieved by the NIG AIOs at the end of the 1990s. Table 5: Labour market positions of graduated NIG AIOs, 1 January 2000 Labour market position Research positions

(Non)academic Academic

Non-academic Civil service Other positions Total

Source:

Differentiation Postdoc Research associates Assistant professor Associate professor

Number 4 4 12 3 7 4 6 40

NIG (2001: 10).

Low salaries and relatively bad perspectives for acquiring a university job have been major problems with regard to the recruitment of AIOs. At present, various universities are no longer using the AIO system and are experimenting with more attractive offers. The fact that Dutch universities in general are unable to recruit sufficient numbers of AIOs in the Netherlands is partly compensated by attracting foreign ones.

2.6

Professional Communication

Dutch political scientists clearly have a strong international orientation. Hans Daalder was among the founding fathers of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) while his colleague Arend Lijphart, until 1978 professor of international relations at Leiden, was the first editor of the European Journal of Political Research. Since 1970, Dutch political scientists have regularly participated in the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the ECPR, thus enhancing the further professionalization and internationalization of Dutch political science. According to Daalder (1991: 298), the discipline is characterized by its ‘modest size, research concentration on the Netherlands, substantial specialization, and a generally strong awareness of international trends in the discipline’. To this, it may be added that the awareness in question is almost completely limited to trends in the Anglo-Saxon regions. The Dutch Political Science Association’s journal Acta Politica gradually evolved from being a journal by and for Dutch political scientists to acquire the status of a fully refereed journal with a book review section, published (since 1997) wholly in English. The choice of a new editorial policy, most notably in the form of the internationalization of the journal, involved the recruitment of an international advisory board (25 members from various European and Northern American universities and from all the fields of political science). In 2003, Acta Politica found an international publisher (Pal-

292

Bob Reinalda

grave Macmillan). Although this strategy added to Acta’s international status, it left the Dutch community of political scientists without a national professional journal. A recent strategy of the Dutch Association is to cooperate more closely with Dutch-speaking Belgian political scientists and to encourage political scientists to submit articles in Dutch to Res Publica, the Belgian journal of political science. In 2004, the editorial team of Res Publica admitted a Dutch political scientist. Since 2002, the annual conference of the Politicologenetmaal has been a joint Flemish-Dutch affair. The Dutch and Flemish political science associations organize the conference together, one year the Dutch take the lead, the other year the Flemish. Cooperation between Dutch and Flemish political scientists was inconceivable for the older generation of political scientists, but no longer for younger generations, who used to cooperate at ECPR, IPSA or other international conferences. Two relatively small circles were brought together in the new Politicologenetmaal with the effect of finding a larger and more interesting circle, also because of cultural differences between the two groups (Hooghe 2005). Membership of international political science associations is quite high. Many Dutch political scientists are members of, for instance, the American Political Science Association, or, in case they want to visit an IPSA conference, join the IPSA for a while. All Dutch departments are members of the ECPR and the European Political Science Network (epsNet), which focuses on education and has a strong basis in both Western and Eastern Europe. Dutch political scientists do not see the emergence of a European Political Science Association as a necessity, but as a matter to be left to European organizations such as ECPR, epsNet and ECNA.

3 The Future of Political Science in the Netherlands Political science in the Netherlands exists in the form of two large and two smaller departments and a relatively small national association. But the discipline does not occupy the most favourable position given its weak urge to constitute a national political science community, the individual position of the four departments, the split between political science and public administration, the relatively weak research capacity and its instable inflow of students.6 However, the discipline has its niche in the market. And in this context it is quite a comfort that students of political science do find jobs, as they have done for years, for instance with municipalities, universities, commer6

Number of first-year students in political science: 1970: 339; 1975: 196; 1980: 332; 1985: 502, 1989: 675; 1995: 383; 2000: 303; 2005: 396.

The Current State of Political Science in the Netherlands

293

cial services and the national government, as well as non-governmental organizations, education and journalism. Their major professional activities are policy-making (preparation and implementation of decisions) and a wide range of advisory and research activities, including the writing of reports. Major differences between political scientists and students of public administration have been the broader view held by political scientists, their inclination to demonstrate connections between various phenomena related to issues to be dealt with, and their grasp of implied power relations. It is to be expected that both political science and public administration will remain different fields, notwithstanding the fact that scholars of both fields have many scientific ideas and literature in common and also meet each other during conferences and in institutions. The split as well as the relatively small size of the two disciplines are handicaps for success in acquiring research funding and they will contribute to keeping their size relatively small in the academic landscape. It is to be expected that the Dutch government will continue on the path set by the Bologna Process. Dutch political science with its 3 + 1 year’s structure is in a weaker position compared to countries with a 3 + 2 years structure because there is less time to widen or deepen the discipline. Although some will argue that this will attract more students because they will get a degree in fewer years, the problem is of course that Dutch students will learn less than in other countries. There are no reasons to expect that Dutch political scientists will become less internationally oriented. They will continue to be present at international conferences of IPSA, APSA, ECPR and epsNet.

Political Science Quality Assessment Reports Rapport van de Visitatie-Commissie voor Sociologie, Politicologie en Bestuurskunde, 27 February 1987. Onderwijsvisitatie Bestuurs-, Beleids- en Politieke Wetenschappen, VSNU, January 1992. Quality Assessment of Research. Research in Political Science, Public Administration and Communication Science 1990-1994, VSNU, April 1996. Onderwijsvisitatie Politicologie. Opleidingen: Politicologie (RUL, UVA, KUN). Politicologie en Bestuurskunde (VU), VSNU, September 1997. Public Administration. Political Science. Communication Science. Research Quality Assessment, VSNU, December 2002. Onderwijsvisitatie Politicologie, QANU, September 2004 (available in Dutch at www.qanu.nl).

294

Bob Reinalda

References Daalder, Hans (1991): "Political Science in the Netherlands", European Journal of Political Research 20(3-4): 279-300. De Vree, Johann K. (1976): "Political Science in the Netherlands", ECPR News Circular (26): 4-40. Duursma, Mark (2005): "Away with equality. The educational system breaks the taboo on distinguishing between students", NRC Handelsblad. Thema: The Netherlands (25 June): 19. Hooghe, Marc (2005): "Divided by the same language: political science associations in Belgium and the Netherlands", European Political Science (4): 141-50. Lieshout, Robert H. and Bob Reinalda (2001): "The Dutch Political Science Association 1950-2000", European Political Science 1(1): 60-5. NIG (2001): Netherlands Institute of Government 1995-1999: a self-evaluation, Enschede: Netherlands Institute of Government. Reinalda, Bob and Eva Kulesza (2005): The Bologna Process − Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education. Including the Essential Original Texts. Foreword by Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Opladen and Bloomfield Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Rijpperda Wierdsma, Jan Volkert and G. A. Hintzen (1950): "Political Science in the Netherlands", Contemporary Political Science, Paris: UNESCO: 280-93. Thomassen, Jacques (1996): "Political Science in the Netherlands" in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): Report on the State of the Discipline in Europe, Political Science in Europe: Education, Co-operation, Prospects, Paris: European Thematic Network Political Science: 373-93.

Norwegian Political Science Tore Hansen1

1 Historical Background Judged by several criteria and standards, the development of Norwegian political science may be characterized as a success story. It is a success in terms of growth in study programmes and number of students, a growth in research on political issues and not least it is a success story as far as job opportunities for political scientists are concerned. The impact of political science is also felt when it comes to the development and implementation of various types of political reforms in Norway – whether such reforms concern the reorganization of the national health system, the development of regional industrial policies, the formulation of a national oil policy or the development of the country’s relation to international and supranational organizations. None of those who in the early post-war years worked for the establishment of a study programme in political science were able to imagine the consequences which their proposal eventually had, and if they had been able to preview the development that has taken place over the past five decades, they would certainly have given their proposal a second – and probably also a third – thought. It was the experience of World War II, including five years of German occupation, which was the immediate background for the establishment of a study programme in political science at the University of Oslo in 1947 – at that time the only Norwegian university. The initiative to establish a university degree in political science came from historians, philosophers and experts on public and international law. According to them, a study programme in political science could serve as a supplement to studies in law and history, and would be particularly useful for those who aimed at a professional career as diplomats and journalists. During the first ten years, the study of political science was a hybrid between public law and history, and was formally organized as a part of the Faculty of law at the University of Oslo, and the teaching was provided by historians and public law experts. No thoughts 1

Part of this paper is an updated and revised version of my report on “Political Science in Norway” published in Quermonne (1996: 359-372).

296

Tore Hansen

were, however, given to the need to develop research in political science (Thue 1997). If the ambitions of the “founding fathers” were rather modest and narrowly focused on a programme of study, the students who were recruited during the first years were far more ambitious both with respect to the role which political scientists could and should play in the post-war reconstruction of Norwegian society, and with respect to the need to develop research in this new field of study. The first group of students had personal experiences from the war – some of them as members of the resistance movement and some of them as war prisoners – and their aim was to contribute to the reconstruction and the democratic development of the Norwegian society. According to T. C. Wyller (1997), who, in 1957, became the first professor in political science, the idea which was shared among the first group of students was that in order to achieve their political objectives of developing a modern welfare state, it was a need to establish a platform of knowledge which should be based on research on various aspect of society. During the first years after 1947, it was, however, very much up to the students to orient themselves in the direction of modern approaches to the study of politics, and a major source of inspiration was drawn from American political sociology and research on political behaviour. The central status of political behaviour as a core interest in the study of political science was not least evidenced by the start of the Norwegian election research programme under the leadership of Stein Rokkan and Henry Valen in 1957, a programme which is still running. Although this programme was formally organized at the independent Institute of Social Research in Oslo, it became a central arena for the organization of graduate studies and research in political science at the universities. It took ten years from the start of a study programme until the first chair in and department of political science was established at the University of Oslo – in 1957. The formal establishment of a university department was followed by a growth in number of teachers and researchers, and contributed to broaden the area of research to international relations and public administration – in addition to political behaviour. Ten years later, in 1967, political science was established as a field of study and research at the University of Bergen. Here, the broadening of the field was marked by the fact that two separate organisational units were established – the Department of Comparative Politics and the Department of Public Administration and Organization Studies. The most recent additions to the organization of political science as a university discipline was the establishment of political science departments at the University of Tromsø and most recently at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim (NTNU). In addition to the university departments in political science, political science is also being taught at several of the regional colleges. In most cases teaching at these institutions is limited to undergraduate courses – leading to

Norwegian Political Science

297

a Bachelor degree. Today, there are altogether seven regional colleges which offer a study programme in political science or some of its sub-disciplines – such as public administration.

2 Degrees and Teaching Since the introduction of a study programme in political science in 1947, there have been some major changes in the degree system – a degree system which is common to all universities. Initially, apart from a one year basic course, there was no lower degree in political science as such. A lower four year university degree – a cand.mag.-degree – was composed of two different basic courses from any university discipline, and an intermediate course from one discipline – such as political science. Students aiming at a magister-degree in political science had to embark on a programme of study which lasted for seven years – of which most of the time was used to write a long and comprehensive dissertation based on own research. Even if the establishment of a study programme in political science attracted a considerable number of students, the demand was primarily restricted to the basic one-year introductory course. Only a minority of the students moved on to a higher degree – a magister-degree – and of those, who were awarded the higher degree, very few continued with work for a doctoral degree. For several years the magister-degree was regarded as an acceptable and satisfactory training for those who wanted to proceed with an academic or research career after finishing their studies. During the first ten years after 1947, only 57 persons were awarded a magister-degree from the University of Oslo (Wyller 1997: 403), and the number of students and magister candidates remained at the same low level also during the next decade. It was not until the late 1960s that political science experienced a considerable growth – both in number of students but also in terms of the development of various sub-fields of research and study. At the beginning of the 1970s, the degree system was reformed – with the introduction of the requirement of having achieved the four years cand.mag.-degree before being admitted for another two years of studies for a cand.polit.-degree. For the new cand.polit.-degree more emphasis was given to organized courses, while the relative importance of the dissertation or thesis was downgraded compared to the old magister-system. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the number of students in political science more than doubled at the five university departments – from about 1,500 to 3,170 in 1995, accounting for 4 percent of all students at Norwegian universities. At the University of Oslo, political science became the second most popular field of study − with 1,650 students in 1995 (only the law fac-

298

Tore Hansen

ulty had more students within one single discipline). During the past ten years the number of students has remained at about the same level as in 1995 – with about 3200 students distributed between the four universities. According to figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) – which is the central national agency for handling admission applications for all Norwegian institutions for higher education −, the total number of applicants in 2005 for entering a political science study programme at all Norwegian universities and regional colleges offering such programmes was about 12,500, of which almost 1,800 had political science as their first preference. The total number of applicants for all types of study at Norwegian institutions for higher teaching was slightly less than 100,000, which implies that about 12 percent of these considered entering a study programme in political science. This clearly testifies to the success of political science as a major discipline of study in Norway. The admission requirements have, however, become rather strict as a consequence of this growth in number of applicants, but these requirements vary across the four universities – Oslo being currently the university with the strictest admission requirements. With such a high number of students distributed among five university departments, a major challenge has been to secure an acceptable progress in terms of number of exams, number of finished candidates and time spent at the university for the individual student. For many years there has been an imbalance between number of students admitted and number of students finishing their degree, an imbalance that is particularly problematic in relation to graduate students. The current annual ratio between number of candidates finishing their higher degree and number of new students admitted for the higher level is about 0.7, but less than 20 percent of these students have managed to pass their exams and get their higher degrees according to the prescribed time norms. On average, the Master students use about three years to finish their degree – one year longer than the prescribed norm. This problem of overlong studies, relatively high dropout rates and frequent delays in the progress of studies has become particularly problematic due to the new budgetary system which is being applied to allocate financial resources not just across the various universities and colleges, but also to distribute money across various disciplines and university departments. The number of passed exams and credits earned by individual departments has become a major criteria for the way in which the budget is being allocated. Until now this budgetary system has been rather favourable to political science due to increases in number of students and – after all – increases in the number of exams and finished candidates. But in order to secure the current level of budgetary appropriations in the years to come, there is a need to secure a better progress of study – and a better throughput of students. Such concerns, which were paralleled and stimulated by the Bologna Process, constituted the background for a major national university and col-

Norwegian Political Science

299

lege reform which was implemented in 2003, not without considerable resistance from the university staffs, however. The most important part of the reform concerned the degree system, where the Bologna proposal of a two cycle system consisting of a three-year Bachelor degree and a two-year Master degree at the top of this was adopted and implemented by the Norwegian authorities. This reform implied the abolishment of the old cand.mag.- as well as the cand.polit.-degree. In practical terms the reform resulted in a lower degree which reduced the length of study from four to three years. The most important educational consequence of the reform was that the Bachelor degree became more specialized than the former cand.mag.-degree; the students should study one subject less than they did in the previous system, and their choice of other courses in addition to their major subject (e.g., political science) became narrower than what it used to be. While the former degree system to a large extent left it to the students themselves to “compose” their lower degree in the selection of courses and disciplines, the new Bachelor degree prescribes that the students have to register for a programme where the menu of disciplines/courses is rather restricted. At the same time, the number of study programmes for a Bachelor degree has grown, many of them overlapping with each other when it comes to the selection of courses. In this sense, the study reform – and particularly its first cycle – has resulted in a multitude of programmes which include courses in political science, courses making the students qualified for being admitted for the more disciplinary Master programme in political science. As far as the introduction of the Master degree is concerned, this did not lead to any major changes compared to the previous cand.polit.-degree. The length of study remained the same – two years – and the thesis still constitutes a major component of the work for this degree. In order to secure a better progress for the students, the number of mandatory courses – and course papers – was reduced, while the supervision of the students’ work on the thesis was intensified. In this respect quality assurance was made an important part of the reform. Table 1: Number of higher degrees (cand.polit. and Master) by university department in 1995 and 2004 (2003 for Bergen depts.) Department Oslo Bergen: comparative politics Bergen: public administration Trondheim Tromsø All departments

Number being awarded a higher degree 1995 2004 88 89 17 25 35 20 10 19 20 13 170 166

It is still too early for any comprehensive assessment of the consequences of the new degree system and the reforms of the teaching and supervision pro-

Tore Hansen

300

grammes. It should also be noted that the implementation of this reform varies somewhat between the four universities, but the differences are quite marginal and are hardly of any importance when it comes to the effects on study quality and study progress. Preliminary figures on number of exams in political science courses over the past four years indicate a significant growth at the Bachelor level, but no such growth has been observed at the Master level – at none of the four universities. Table 1 compares the number of students achieving a higher degree (cand.polit. and Master) in 1995 and 2004 – by university department. As is evident from these figures, the study reform has so far had no effects on the number of candidates receiving a Master degree. Actually, the total figure for all departments was lower in 2004 than in 1995. One should, however, take care in not exaggerating the importance of these figures. The reform of the degree system has only been in existence for a period of three years, and so far there are almost no students at the Master level who have full experience of the new degree system. Most of those who have been awarded a Master degree so far started their studies under the old system, but the challenges and problems of moving from the old to the new system have been quite moderate.

2.1

Doctoral Degrees

Until the mid-1980s, Norwegian universities did not offer any organized programmes for doctoral students in political science – or any other social science disciplines. As mentioned above, the old magister-degree contained a significant component of research education and was regarded as a sufficient platform for entering a career as a researcher in social and political sciences. Those who wanted could defend a dissertation for a Dr.philos. degree – a degree which is common to all university disciplines, and which used to be the only doctoral degree to be awarded by Norwegian universities. The problem with this degree was – and is – that it was based on individual work on a dissertation, without any senior supervision of the work and without any other requirement as to courses needed or submission of papers to be evaluated in addition to the public defence of the dissertation. This rather individualistic system implied – among many other things – that the time used to finish the degree was considerable; it was a degree awarded to people who had worked within the research system for some time, and the average age of those being awarded the degree was rather high. In this respect the degree was not regarded as a part of a research education, but signified rather the zenith of a research career than the start of it. A consequence of this was that several researchers recruited to the universities or other parts of the research system never bothered to aim for this degree. At

Norwegian Political Science

301

the universities there were no requirements that a person had been awarded the doctoral degree in order to get a tenured position; what counted to get such positions was not the formal competence acquired through a Dr.philos. degree, but rather the person’s real competence as demonstrated by scientific publications – and other qualifying experiences from research and teaching. During the late 1980s, a new doctoral degree was introduced at Norwegian universities – the Dr.polit. degree. In the new system, all those entering a doctoral study programme are being regarded as full-time students (in contrast to the old system), with various requirements as regards attendance of courses and submission of mandatory papers in order to be qualified to have a theses defended. Furthermore, each doctoral student is under organized supervision, and is expected to finish her or his work within three years after having entered the programme. The formal entrance requirement to be accepted as doctoral student is to have finished a Master degree, but the most decisive factor in order to become accepted as a doctoral student is the individual research plan for the dissertation. In connection with the most recent major reform of the degree system, it was decided to replace the Dr.polit. degree with a PhD degree, which is common for all disciplines at the universities. In practical terms the new degree system does not imply any significant changes compared to the Dr.polit. degree – apart from a simplification of the evaluation procedures in connection with the public defence of the doctoral dissertation. The new degree system was introduced from 2003, and the previous system is going to be completely abolished in 2007. In 2004, a total of 19 students were awarded a doctoral degree in political science at the four Norwegian universities, which is about the same number that has been awarded such degrees annually since the turn of the century. Due to a limited number of scholarships for doctoral students, there is no reason to believe that there will be any steep increases in the number of such degrees in the nearest future. This may to some extent depend on whether the regional colleges are achieving the status of universities, with the right to award doctoral degrees – in contrast to the situation to day. Regional colleges do, however, function as host institutions for doctoral students – who do their research work at the college.

2.2

Academic Staff and Research

Political science in Norway has not only grown in terms of number of students and candidates with higher degrees. The growth is also evidenced in the growth in number of researchers and teachers within the field. One may distinguish between three major phases in the development of the discipline. The first period of expansion took place (in Oslo) after the first university

302

Tore Hansen

chair had been established in 1957. The establishment of this chair and a university department of its own were followed by a growth in the number of teaching and research positions, an expansion which continued through the 1960s. During the late 1960s, chairs as well as other research and teaching positions were created at the University of Bergen, where eventually two separate departments in political science (Department of comparative politics and Department of public administration and organization studies) were organized. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, the growth of the discipline within the university sector was rather moderate and few new positions as university teachers or researchers within the field were established. The exception was the newly established University of Tromsø. This second period was a period of consolidation and reform of study programmes. As far as research is concerned, the field developed in a pluralistic direction, with an increase in projects within the field of public administration and policy analyses, as well as international relations and politics, even if research in this last field had been going on since the very start of political science studies in the early 1950s. In this sense the relative dominance of political behaviour was weakened – even if research in this field grew in absolute terms – quantitatively as well as qualitatively. It should also be noted that the university departments were not – and are still not – the only institutions to organize research in political science. Several independent research institutes became active actors in the research arena during the 1960s and 1970s, often in close cooperation with the university departments. The Institute of Social Research in Oslo has already been mentioned as the host of the national election programme. This institute did also play a central role in the development of other subfields of political science, in particular research on public administration and public policy. In Bergen, the Christian Michelsen Institute, where Stein Rokkan had become head of research in combination with his professorship at the university, became another important institution for political research. The same applies to the Norwegian Institute for Research on Foreign Policy and Politics as well as the Peace Research Institute of Oslo and the Frithjof Nansen Institute which do research on international relations. Research on political themes is also taking place at the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research in Oslo and the newly established Rokkan Centre at the University of Bergen. At the University of Oslo, the ARENA (Advanced Research on the Europeanization of the Nation-State) research programme has become a national centre for the study of Europeanization of the nation-states, and where political scientists play a dominant role. There are also several other independent research institutes which do research within the field of political science – many of them in close cooperation with the regional colleges. Furthermore, it has become rather common for researchers to have joint ap-

Norwegian Political Science

303

pointments between such institutions and the university or regional college departments. The most expansive period in the development of political science started at the beginning of the 1990s, and was marked by a significant expansion in the number of staff at the university politics departments, affecting all universities as well as the research institutes outside the universities. A major cause of this expansion was a rather dramatic increase in number of students. This student pressure, which to a considerable extent was caused by an increasing level of unemployment among young people, led the government to increase the university budgets substantially, an increase which was particularly beneficial to the social sciences. At all political science departments new research and teaching positions were established in combination with an increase in number of scholarships for doctoral students. In 2004, the number of permanent staff is as follows at the five university departments: • • • • •

Dept. of Political Science, University of Oslo Dept. of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen Dept. of Public Administration, University of Bergen Dept. of Political Science, Trondheim Dept. of Political Science, University of Tromsø

32 16 19 18 16

In addition to these 101 positions, there are some part time positions for researchers from the independent research institutes. If we distribute these members of staff according to their disciplinary specialization and research interest, we arrive at the following tentative distribution for 1995 and 2004 (since several of the staff members cover more than one specialization, it is impossible to give exact figures):

• • • •

Public Administration / Public Policy International Relations Comparative Politics / Political Behaviour Political Theory

1995 % 50 15 25 10

2004 % 39 18 34 10

As is evident from these figures, there have been some important changes in the relative distribution – and importance – of these sub-disciplines as far as the composition of staff is concerned. While international relations and political theory have kept their relative proportion of staff members, there has been a rather significant increase in the proportion of staff doing research on comparative politics and/or political behaviour, while the study of public administration and public policy has experienced a relative decline in number of teaching and research positions at the five university departments. These changes are hardly a reflection of a conscious policy to give lower priority to the study of public administration and policy. In fact, the funding of such

304

Tore Hansen

research is quite good and has increased over the past 20 years. This relative decline may rather be due to the fact that an increasing proportion of the research on public administration and public policy takes place outside the universities – within independent research institutes, and often in close cooperation with university researchers. Actually, due to substantial teaching burdens at the university departments, an increasing number of researchers find it more attractive to work at such research institutes. An important feature of the Norwegian university system is that all tenured academic staff positions have an equal duty and opportunity to spend half of their working hours to do research, irrespective of their formal position. This implies that at the five university departments about 50 woman/man-years are being spent for research purposes every year. In reality, the actual time spent for research is lower than this – mainly due to heavy teaching burdens – but the total amount of research done at these departments, as measured by publications per staff member, has shown a steady increase over the past couple of decades. Access to external financial resources – in particular from the Norwegian Research Council and from various ministries – is a major cause of this growth in research. Another consequence of this increased access to external resources for research is that the research activities to an increasing degree have become organized in larger programmes stretching over several years and involving researchers from several institutes and universities. Such cross-institutional cooperation has not least been strengthened by the role played by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services in providing a common data pool for all Norwegian social science researchers. Furthermore, the equality in research opportunities among staff members is also reflected in the actual level of performance; judged from the publication lists there are few staff members in the five university departments which may be characterized as inactive, and the variations in frequency of scientific publications among the staff members does not display any strong positive correlation with seniority. As a consequence of the recent university reforms, the amount of research done has become quite crucial for the funding of the departments – and not only the research activities. This puts all staff members under a constant pressure to publish their research – but also to acquire external funding for their research activities. So far the university politics departments have been quite successful in securing funding for their research, and in some cases these departments have been given a major responsibility for the running of larger inter-disciplinary research programmes, such as the programme on “Leadership, organization and governance in public sector”, the programme on “Advanced Research on the Europeanization of the Nation-State” (ARENA) and the research programme on “Power and democracy”, the last one including participants from all five politics departments.

Norwegian Political Science

2.3

305

Job Opportunities

As noted in the introduction the establishment of a study programme in political science was justified as a supplement to studies in law or history among those who aimed at a career as diplomats or journalists. Beyond this, few considerations were given to the possibility of entering – or even conquering – other areas of the job market for those with a higher university degree. Apart from the need to educate university teachers within the discipline, the typical career pattern for those being awarded a degree in political science during the first years was, indeed, the media and the foreign services. With an annual number of graduates which during the 1950s and 1960s rarely exceeded five, there were no reasons for concern about the job prospects; the candidates were easily absorbed by the media, foreign services as well as the growing market for research in social sciences during these years. The job opportunities extended, however, soon to other areas of the labour market – in particular to public administration, but to an increasing degree also larger private companies and business organizations. These extended job opportunities − alongside with the fact that many political scientists had risen to quite high and powerful positions on the non-academic job market − contributed to attract an increased number of students to the discipline. According to a survey which was conducted among Norwegian students in 2000, students of political science asserted that the prospects for attaining leading and powerful jobs after leaving the university was a major reason why they chose political science as their field of study (Hansen 2000). Figures on the actual demand for political scientists on the job market are rather difficult to acquire. Normally political scientists are being grouped together with other social scientists in the official labour markets statistics. However, among those who are labelled “social scientists” in the official statistical reports, a substantial proportion (at least 1/3) are political scientists. If we look at the job opportunities for newly graduated political scientists, surveys conducted by the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education show that until the mid-1980s the job market for political scientists was rather good. According to these studies, none of those who had been awarded a higher degree in political science in 1985 (at that time either the magister or the cand.polit. degrees) were unemployed six months after they had graduated. In a similar study conducted in 1997, it was reported that 10 percent of political scientists were unemployed half a year after leaving the university (Szanday 1998). This figure has risen somewhat over recent years, but the unemployment is far from alarming. We should be reminded that these figures only tell us about the difficulties or ease by which newly educated political scientist face when entering the labour market. Furthermore, in assessing these figures we should bear in mind the enormous

306

Tore Hansen

increase in the supply of political scientists which has taken place over the past two decades. In 2004, the number of candidates had more than tripled compared to the figures in 1985. Taking such changes into consideration we are slightly misguided by unemployment rates. While about 60 newly graduated political scientists had acquired a satisfactory job six months after finishing their higher degree in 1985, the similar figure in 2004 was just above 140. The seeming mismatch between the supply of and demand for political scientists on the labour market has therefore nothing to do with a decrease in the demand for this kind of competence; it is rather a reflection of the steep increase in the supply of political scientists. A stabilisation in the number of students in political science in the years to come may re-establish a better balance between supply and demand. We should not exaggerate the observed imbalance at the entrance of the job market for political scientists. In the first place, the rate of unemployment at this early stage of the job career is slightly lower for people with a degree in political science than other groups with a long university education. About fifteen percent of those with an education in mathematics or natural sciences reported to have similar problems, and even among lawyers the proportion reporting on such problems exceeded 15 percent. In the second place, international comparisons based on similar surveys in OECD countries show that Norwegian political scientists rank among those with the highest probability of being employed at this stage of their job career (Try 1998). Official labour market figures also indicate that the total number of political scientists in the Norwegian work force has grown twice as much as the average growth for all members of the work force with higher university degrees. Altogether, labour market statistics show that people with an education in political science are in high demand at the job market. Despite certain entrance problems, the total level of unemployment is negligible, and the relative increase in the number of political scientists in the work force is significantly higher than for other groups with similar university degrees. When it comes to the question of what kind of jobs political scientists get, there is a lack of detailed data. The surveys on those, who have just entered the labour market, provide us, however, with some indicators on what kind of jobs they get (Szanday 1998). The problem with these data is that political scientists are classified together with other social scientists, but they do give us an approximate picture of the types of job which political scientists get. According to these surveys, as much as 74 percent of all social scientists in 1977 were employed in the public sector. This includes those 27 percent of all social scientists who worked in the universities, regional colleges and other research institutions, indicating that there is a rather big demand for social science research and teaching. A further 16 percent worked as teachers, mainly in secondary schools. The perhaps most important part of the job market for political scientists is within public administration – both

Norwegian Political Science

307

the central civil services and in regional and local government. Altogether, 20 percent of all social scientists work in public administration, and social scientists are in the process of becoming a dominating group among civil servants in the central ministries (including the foreign services). Even if public sector constitutes the most important part of the job market for political scientists, there has been an increase in the proportion of those who work in the private sector, and in particular in jobs as administrators and/or consultants for private companies, such as in banks, companies working with information technology and companies within the energy sector. Another part of the labour market for political scientists is in trade unions (as employees) and in larger voluntary associations – such as the Red Cross. And finally, media is still in demand for political scientists; all major national newspapers have political scientists on their staff – as reporters, commentators and editors. The same applies to major radio and television stations.

6 Other Organisational Features In the previous description of the development of Norwegian political science, some indications have been given as to the general organization and division of tasks between higher education institutions. The first thing to be noted as regards the organization of teaching and in particular of research in political science in Norway today, is the rather fragmented organisational structure under which teaching and research takes place. Outside the university sector there are a sizeable number of independent institutions who do research in political science. Looking at the total budgetary figures, most research in this field – as indicated by the relative share of total national expenses for political research – takes place outside the five university departments. Second, almost all institutions teaching and doing research in the field are funded by public budgets, either directly via the state budget or via funding from the national research council – as basic funding or funding of specific research programmes and projects. Private funding constitutes only a small fraction of total financial appropriations to teaching and research in political science. The institutional fragmentation of political science should not be taken as evidence of a lack of cooperation between the many institutions doing research and teaching in the field. In particular there is a long tradition of close cooperation between university departments and the independent research institutes, a cooperation that encompasses both research and teaching. The independent research institutes have not least played an important part in the development of the organized doctoral programmes, not least by providing

308

Tore Hansen

wages as well as office space and other research facilities for doctoral students – in addition to integrating them in their research projects and programmes. Cooperation between Norwegian political scientists is also taking place within the Norwegian Political Science Association. The current number of members is about 500, which clearly exceeds the number of political scientists engaged in teaching and research in Norway. The reason for this is that all those who have been awarded a higher degree in political science are eligible for membership in this association. This implies that a considerable proportion of its members consist of civil servants as well as political scientists working in private organizations and business. This mix of members contributes to maintain the community of political scientists in Norway and to provide communication channels between researchers and practitioners. The Norwegian Political Science Association publishes the only general political science journal in Norway (and in Norwegian): Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift. In addition, the Norwegian Institute for Research on Foreign Policy and Politics publishes Internasjonal Politikk as well as a yearbook. Apart from these journals Scandinavian Political Studies is a joint publication for the Nordic Political Science Association. Furthermore, the Journal of Peace Research and Cooperation and Conflict have both “roots” in Norwegian political science. All political science departments – as well as some other institutions – are members of the European Consortium for Political Research. Norwegian political scientists have also been actively engaged in other international organizations within the discipline. The Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo was active in the establishment of the Thematic Network in political science, and this department – together with the University of Bergen and the Agder Regional College are members of the epsNet. Furthermore, at the beginning of the 1990s, the secretariat (the general secretary) of International Political Science Association was hosted by the Department of Political Science in Oslo, with F. Kjellberg as general secretary.

References Hansen, Tore (2000): The Job Market for Norwegian Political Scientists, paper for the Third Plenary Conference of the European Thematic Network in Political Science, Hamburg, June 2000. Quermonne, Jean-Louis (ed.) (1996): Political Science in Europe: education, cooperation, prospects: report on the state of the discipline in Europe, Paris: Thematic Network in Political Science. Szanday, Birgitta (1998): “Kandidatundersøkelsen 1997”, in: Birgitta Szanday and Berit Lødding (eds.): Utdanning og arbeidsmarked 1998, Oslo: NIFU-report, Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education: 95-123.

Norwegian Political Science

309

Thue, Fredrik W. (1997): ”Statsvitenskapen 50 år – et kapittel av norsk samfunnsvitenskaps historie”, Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift 13: 187-214. Try, Sverre (1998): ”Utviklingen i arbeidsmarkedet for høyere utdanning”, in: Birgitta Szanday and Berit Lødding (eds.): Utdanning og arbeidsmarked 1998, Oslo: NIFU-report, Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education: 81-93. Wyller, Thomas Christian (1997): ”Noen jubileumsord: om kunnskap, standpunkt og politisk handling”, Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift 13: 402-406.

Political Science in Portugal Adriano Moreira

1 Introduction 1. The autonomy of political science in Portugal was linked to a paradigm shift within the constitutional regime itself, whose crisis it has anticipated. Therefore, and preceding the debate on the legitimacy of the scientific domain, it is suitable to try and understand the separate processes of the evolution of the official attitude towards the social sciences at large and the parallel theoretical development, proceeding marginally and not always faithfully to the scientific neutrality, through the unavoidable connection to contending ideological definitions whose frequent role it was to reply and contest the state’s ideological attitude. We should stress the enduring presence, in the realm of the humanities, of the Western legacy of political thought, a random source for political intervention but otherwise a crucial element of the cultural fabric. The history of political ideas has been promoted having as its central aim the doctrinal systems. At the same time, Constitutional Law was examining the regimes according to which political power operated and had been organized, some times acknowledging the normative reception of doctrinal propositions, only though when reality would not impose the distancing from the guiding principles. The fundamentals of the modern process of political science’s international autonomy proceeded along with the tenure of the 1933 Political Constitution, which invoked the corporatism of association and the constraint of political power resorting to the country’s traditional morals, i.e., the catholic morals. It consecrated the conception of a sturdy state denying parliamentarianism, opposing the organizing of political factions and explicitly doing away with democratic and liberal streams. As far as the role of the President of the Council of Ministers is concerned, it was more inspired by the Code of Canonical Law than by any other sort of doctrinal tradition. This model of authoritarian states, differing in the theses from that of the totalitarian state but incidentally agreeing with them in the hypotheses, does not do without a state ideology capable of excluding contestation, but always shows cautious vis-à-vis the social sciences, especially political science,

312

Adriano Moreira

given that the latter analytically deconstruct the power chain and was able to open up the defensive lines of political power, thereby de-reifying the images produced by the superstar show state (Salazar 1938; Caetano 1931, 1936; Moreira 1951). In the Portuguese cultural tradition, and even before the liberal revolutions, the classics of Roman and Greek tradition were called on and their theoretical constructions discussed. The problematiques of ancient civism had left a trace in the doctrinal cultural acquis, which was always developed based on Homer who in stanza II of The Iliad sustains the argument that “the government of many is not good, may we have no more than one lord, one king, the one to whom the son of Chronos has bestowed the scepter and the tutelary laws”. The circumstances of the establishment of the kingdom, occurring at the time of the expansion of sacerdotalism and Gregory VII’s proclamation of his dictatus papæ, point decisively to the catholic doctrinal matrix, as well as at a form of government which is tributary to the long times of military command. The territory had been defined according to the model of the crusades against the invading Muslim, a task that would occupy the whole of the First Dynasty (1108-1385), whereupon the Second Dynasty (1385-1580) mobilized to the mission of maritime discoveries and conquests, a new task demanding, as Luís de Camões the author of The Lusiads would put it, carrying the pen on one hand and the sword on the other. After the Philippine interregnum (1580-1640), in the Fourth Dynasty (1640-1910) the country was frequently and for long periods involved in military operations, including the take off for Africa after the 1885 Conference of Berlin, with severe crises regarding the transition from legitimism to successive forms of constitutionalism, that is, the liberal, the republican, the corporatist and finally the democratic regime (25 April 1974). The tradition of command chain and the sturdy authority has long roots. In the corporatist regime, the dominant intervention of Oliveira Salazar, an active member of Centro Académico da Democracia Cristã (Christian Democratic Academic Centre) who was also the most relevant diffuser of the Pontifical thought in Portugal, found its definition in the preface he wrote to the first volume of his speeches: “the ideas in these speeches are broadly known: I can even affirm that they do not belong to me, but to the collectivity; corresponding to the Country’s spirits, they were adopted and appropriated by it” (Salazar 1938: XLIX). It is possible to sustain that his model was the Code of Canon Law, in that part which regulated the bylaw of Ordinário do Lugar (the Regular of a Place), usually the Bishop, defined as a judicious man and having the guide of a sacred text, and in the case of the state the guide being the corporatist doctrine poured out into the constitutional text. This perspective of the Estado Novo (New State) did not formally depart from that which, though

Political Science in Portugal

313

today the object of political science, was then a part of moral philosophy becoming autonomous from theology. Although the perspectives are due to diversify in the course of time, the kernel of moral philosophy problematiques related to the state always corresponds to the definition of the good government, the connection between freedom and the fair intervention of political power according to natural law, the autonomy of such natural groups as families, churches and territorial communities, the guarantee of justice and security, the whole culminating in the discussion of the conception of the state. The inspiration of the school of thought which would not forget Herodotus, Pericles, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero and which deepened medieval sacerdotalism supported by Saint Paul, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, lived on, either detached from the challenge posed by the facts of the political regime in tenure or by fighting against the facts. Thomism, which suggested a moderate relationship between political power and spiritual power, would not, however, prevent the increasing challenge posed by the laic currents supported by Dante (1265-1321), William of Ockham (1270-1349), or Marsilius of Padua (1280-1341). The latter maybe the one who most clearly opened the door to the emergence of the crucial separation of the waters represented by Macchiavelli (1469-1527): the Florentine does not intend to moralize the workings of the Prince; only to codify the procedures capable of leading to the triumph in the acquisition, the holding and the exercising of power, looking at a divided Italy from the perspective of the concept according to which in the absence of the prince, there is no unification: that is why the word state, bearing the current meaning, appears at the beginning of the most celebrated book The Prince (1532). Until the predominance of this conception, the subject of the education of the Prince since childhood, “in order to obtain control and rule”, counted in the Portuguese tradition, among its valid assumptions, the legitimacy of the dynastic inheritance and moral philosophy. The evolution which, beginning with the Atlantic revolution, has created, in the Portuguese 19th century, the model of the rational-normative state, has on its turn adopted the Constitution as a categorical imperative and has approached the state as a global entity and with the same criterion of control and rule. That is why the science of Law has absorbed political phenomenology, overlooking the autonomy of the processes of social reality which it deemed disciplinable. In the long tenure of the 1933 Corporatist Constitution, the definition of that categorical imperative focused on the validity of greater interests (God, Fatherland, Family) replacing the validity of the will of the majority and started defining the legitimacy of action by reference to the affirmed authenticity of intervention.

314

Adriano Moreira

Constitutional Law has had praiseworthy university cultivators and furthermore corporatist law has been the object of a great deal of attention, without omitting critical allusions to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu and their rationalist school of thought in the discourse of what the state ought to be. However, political philosophy did not achieve a relevant and autonomous place in the teaching system, and there were no specific chairs devoted to the problematiques of the limits of state intervention in the citizens’ life or of that which, following Hugo Grotius, John Locke and Thomas Paine, men consider to be their natural rights, including security and peace, whose grounding justified, for Hobbes, granting the state an unlimited power, and freedom, which for Locke and Rousseau demanded civic intervention in the constitution of government. All in all, all the problematiques of man vis-à-vis the state, the rule of law, social justice, the freedom and responsibility of the citizen in relation to the state. Although not invoked, the paternalism of canonical law worked as the developed and commented upon pattern, and the legitimacy of authoritarian intervention as a method against all forms of deviation. 2. It was especially during this period that Political Science developed, most of all in the USA, in Britain, France and Germany, with a differing autonomy in relation to Sociology. This reference is helpful in the understanding that the subject of Political Science still remains dispersed in more than one discipline. In the Portuguese case, we must consider the self-evident importance of the specific openness of Law to Political Science, despite of the programmed absence of an academically acknowledged Sociology. In the tenure of corporatism, and while in Portugal there were only two Faculties of Law, in Coimbra and Lisbon, it was the former that provided some of the most relevant lecturers of that time. One of them was Professor Fezas Vital (1888-1953), who did not leave us much written works but instead, and as it was common practice by then, bequeathed the rough copy of the courses he lectured. His efforts were intended to reconcile the catholic oriented philosophy of values, Kelsen’s doctrine calling attention by then to the school of Vienna, Hauriou’s institutionalism and Duguit’s realism. It was noticeably not easy to accommodate all these different lines of thought, but having in mind in particular the burning questions of the time such as the workers’ movements and the ensuing syndical autonomy, both institutionalism and realism instigated the lawyer to take into account the challenges of state security, of power efficiency, of safeguarding the community’s shared interests and of the creative dialectics to bring together the latter with the realist oriented individualist perspective of interests. It is not possible to find a sustained legacy of Fezas Vital’s intervention and for a long period the connection between the Science of Law and Politi-

Political Science in Portugal

315

cal Science seemed incapable of progressing. And yet, Jean Bodin and the 16th-century theory of sovereignty were not forgotten and remained an important reference in German federalism, at the same time inspiring the selfconstraint doctrine with which Georg Jellinek intended to solve the international and constitutional obstacles to the absolutism of that power without match in the domestic sphere and with no superior above it in the external sphere. In Britain, The London School of Economics and Political Science was established in 1895 and Oxford founded its first chair in 1911, but the Portuguese connection with British universities was sparse. In Lisbon, the presence of the Italian and French writings was dominant and it was Professor Marcello Caetano who first, in the French tradition of prioritizing the theories of the state and denying autonomy to Political Science through the sustained comprehensiveness of Constitutional Law, named his chair Constitutional Law and Political Science (1952). The inspiration seems to have come from Georges Burdeau who in 1949 had published the Traité de Science Politique with the following warning: “furthermore it [Political Science] is deprived of an object of its own; it is but a method permitting a more fruitful study of Constitutional Law, an angle to a broader view in which the traditional problematiques of public law are circumscribed” (Burdeau 1949: 8). Notwithstanding, it was political power, its nature, foundation, form and evolution, as well as its relationship with the social group from which it emerges and which it governs, that appeared as the identifying element of an avowed subject of fluid boundaries because, he sustained, “there is no such thing as the man of the sociologist, the man of the historian, of the statistics, of the lawyer… there is only the man whose multiple images must not hide the unity” (ibid.: 9). This is the remark which founds the quarrel both about designation and the defining boundaries of an autonomous Political Science. Meanwhile, and as if developing a current apart from the routine life of the political machinery, the generation of lawyers graduating in the dramatic years of the late Portuguese Colonial Empire and the end of the regime, benefited from the study of the German academia which in its turn helped make stronger the more traditional connections with France and Italy and finally produced a noteworthy group of politico-juridical scientists, always focused on Constitutional Law. It is the case, in the context of Coimbra’s Law Faculty, of Gomes Canotilho, Vital Moreira, Lucas Pires, Barbosa de Melo, Cardoso e Costa and, in that of Lisbon’s Law Faculty, of Diogo Freitas do Amaral, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Jorge Miranda, all intervening, with few exceptions, in the 1975 Constitutionalizing chamber (a Constituinte de 1975), in parliamentary life, in political parties, in government, in the Constitutional Court, in mass media commentary and in public debates. The scientific production is remarkable, but in all probability it is Gomes Canotilho, in particular with his reasoning of the right to human rights, who

Adriano Moreira

316

best represents the connection between constitutionalism and sociology. All of them though have their place in the definition of the new prince, i.e., the state as a totality, tending as always to “obtain control and rule” and led by the new categorical imperative contained in the Constitution. One of the latest revealing texts by Gomes Canotilho goes as follows: “The reality of human rights is often assumed while the problematique of their foundation is most of the time overlooked. And it is understandable that those who are daily entangled in the tragedy of human rights violations – the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, the emigrants, the sick, ethnic minorities, the officials from humanitarian agencies – do worry, beyond the juridical, moral and political rhetoric concerning those rights, about the anxiously urgent search for answers to humanitarian catastrophes. The foundational deficit can nonetheless be ascribed to alternative sources. One of them has to do with the dogmatic-juridical approaches to rights” (Canotilho 2005: 13).

2 The Relationship with Sociology 2.1

The Political Constraint

Particularly in the realm of the social sciences, and beyond the constraints derived from the political regime sponsoring the public and only existing network, the Portuguese system of research and teaching has developed an archipelagic regime making sparse the relationships and experiences of exchange among the existing university institutions. This fact has also made it difficult for other already existing fields of knowledge, whenever covered by traditional concepts guiding the definition of the acknowledged curricula, to obtain autonomy. The field of economics and management became a case study due to the difficulty of the process, leading to its separation from the normative economics traditionally taught in law schools. On the other hand, the split of the regime from foreign institutions, with the only exception coming from the resort to bibliographies, was made evident by the meaningful fact that hardly any foreign university degree was recognized. It is this circumstance which explains the overarching detachment regarding the international evolution of political science, mainly in Western countries, given that with regard to Eastern Europe the political barrier was rock-solid.

Political Science in Portugal

2.2

317

The Colonial Pressure

Yet, the specific problematique of the Colonial Empire would sooner than later demand of Political Science a less juridical perspective, more tributary instead of the social sciences. In this regard, the Portuguese political dependency on external factors was instrumental, whereby the observation of the international process, both in its historical dimension and current demands, overtook the needs of the acting diplomacy and opened space, at the same time, for university meditation. On the other hand, the contact of the colonizer in predominant political position with native cultures had been disclosing the insufficiency of the juridical knowledge, as well as leading to the recognition of the relevance of the anthropologic and ethnographic knowledge, the history of cultures, human geography, economics, customary law, systems of power, among others. It is true that with such groundings the study focused more on the policies than on Political Science. Anyway, the worked out legacy was noteworthy and its sponsor was the Lisbon Geographic Society, established in 1875. The same institution promoted the foundation of the Colonial School (1906), which would eventually become the current Institute of Political and Social Sciences (ISCSP) integrated in the Lisbon Technical University (UTL). It would also sponsor the Portuguese occupation of Africa in several campaigns following the 1885 Conference of Berlin. The History of the Present counts as its first endeavour Dangers – Portugal in Europe and the World (Perigos – Portugal na Europe e no Mundo), a book from João de Andrade Corvo, published in 1870. Furthermore, and beyond the emotional literature caused by the 1890 English ultimatum, the assessment of the impact of foreign policy was made by important writers, mainly such as Luciano Cordeiro, the founder of the Lisbon Geographic Society, Barros Gomes, António Enes, Paiva Couceiro, and had relevant repercussions in the teaching professed by Professor Santa Rita at the Colonial School. It was specifically within the context of colonial problematiques, and in the institutional context of the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa that the intervention of Adriano Moreira would start carrying out the autonomy of the Overseas Politics, with relevance to the international variable. By establishing the Centre of Social and Political Studies in the 1950s, he developed the research and teaching of the auxiliary sciences, viz. Cultural Anthropology, History, Diplomacy, Sociology, Development Economics, with the publication of several dozens of studies and the collaboration of professors such as Jorge Dias, Silva Rêgo, Martins de Carvalho, Sedas Nunes, Cardinal António Ribeiro, Pereira de Moura, Magalhães Godinho, Luís de Matos, Vasco Fortuna, Raquel Soeiro de Brito, Francisco José Ten-

Adriano Moreira

318

reiro. Nowadays, in this Institute the field counts Narana Coissoró, José Adelino Maltez, Manuel Meirinho, and the younger Conceição Teixeira and Marcos Farias Ferreira. The practice started to be followed according to which scholarships were granted for young assistants to obtain their PhDs abroad, in the USA, in France, Spain and England.

2.3

The Autonomy of Political Science

The evolution of Political Science, constrained by Portuguese limitations to get access to the international movement of ideas, did not always translate into a domain separate from Sociology. Still in the 1970s, Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg, the famous author of L’Etat spectacle (1977), dealt with the problematiques put in common with Political Science under the title of Sociologie Politique – Eléments de Science Politique (1977). In Portugal, not only the first initiatives of the present Institute of Political and Social Sciences (the former Colonial School), but also the Bureau of Social Investigations of the Institute of Financial and Economic Sciences of Lisbon Technical University (1963), the Catholic Institute of Social Studies of Évora (1964), the Faculty of Human Sciences of Portuguese Catholic University (1972) and the independent Institute of Work and Business Sciences (1962), all of these institutions often dealt with the problematique of Political Science within Sociology. At the University of Évora, there is a chair of Political Sociology led by Maria José Stock. At the Open University, where there is today a Department of Political and Social Sciences, Professor Luís Sá, who died young, initiated the study and research of political science assisted by Professor José Fontes. At the University of Aveiro, José Manuel Moreira today gives life to the department. Once more, it was the aggravation of Portugal’s external dependencies that inspired the split provoked by Adriano Moreira regarding the hegemony of the juridical perspectives, reformulating ISCSP at the same time, an experience he would also develop at the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (1975) and which finally found an expression in a book entitled Political Science, published in Lisbon in 1979. Political Science had been oriented towards a science of power, i.e., the struggle for the acquisition, the holding and exercising of power. However, the line containing much of the problematique of Political Science within the domain of Sociology received important support with the intervention of Boaventura Sousa Santos at the University of Coimbra, where he stirred the creation of the new Faculty of Economics (1972). At the University of Minho, the Dean, Professor Lúcio Craveiro da Silva, S. J., organized the first Portuguese degree in International Relations where today a group of young

Political Science in Portugal

319

academics stands out (Lobo Fernandes, Maria do Céu Pinto e Ana Paula Brandão).

2.4

International Relations and the Partial Problematiques

The Renaissance concept of sovereignty made it so that, though stressing the Portuguese dependency on external factors, International Relations became autonomous side by side with Political Science. This happened also under the lead of Adriano Moreira, at the Institute of Political and Social Sciences of the Lisbon Technical University, who equally taught the new subject at the Lisbon Navy Institute of War. He published his first book on International Politics in 1970 and the first rough copy of Theory of International Relations appeared at the end of his tenure, in 1991/92. However, it was the 1974 Revolution that would boost the creation of dedicated centres in this field, either within or outside the University. At the University of Coimbra there must be stressed Luís Reis Torgal, with the History of Ideas Review (Revista de História das Ideas), and Manuela Tavares Ribeiro, with Review of XX Century Studies (Revista de Estudos do Século XX), the latter chiefly in the domain of European studies; at the Portuguese Catholic University, João Carlos Espada successfully directs both a Master and a PhD degree, as well as the New Citizenship Review (Revista Nova Cidadania); the Portuguese Institute of the Strategic Conjuncture has been publishing annually, in the last 14 years, a volume of studies entitled Strategy (Estratégia); the Luís de Camões Autonomous University publishes a thorough review called Janus, directed by Luís Moita with the aim of making out the conjuncture; the Lusiad University publishes a review called Review of Science and Culture (Revista de Ciência e Cultura) and at the Porto delegation counts with the intervention of Fernando de Sousa. The Portuguese Institute of International Relations (IPRI) initiated the publication of a review called International Relations under the skilled direction of Nuno Severiano Teixeira. The latter is connected to the Department of the New University led by José Esteves Pereira where Political Science is supervised by Cristina Montalvão Sarmento; Boaventura Sousa Santos directs the Critical Review of Social Sciences (Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais); José Manuel Durão Barroso, connected to the Lusiad University, founded the Political Science Review (Revista de Ciência Política); the National Defence Institute, which depends on the Portuguese Defence Ministry, publishes Nation and Defence (Nação e Defesa); Augusto Silva directs Economics and Sociology (Economia e Sociologia) at the Institute of Economic and Social Studies, in Évora. On 25 September 1998, the Portuguese Political Science Association (APCP) was established and it is presently directed by João Carlos Espada.

Adriano Moreira

320

Braga da Cruz, the Dean of the Portuguese Catholic University, was its first president and director of Social Analysis (Análise Social), the most important Portuguese review. Mostly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the evolution of the international conjuncture, with the subsequent crisis of the Renaissance inspired model of the sovereign state, points now at research and teaching experiences capable of grounding both Political Science and International Relations.

3 Assessing the State of the Art In Portugal there is presently a national system to assess higher education which is coordinated by the National Board for the Assessment of Higher Education (Conselho Nacional de Avaliação do Ensino Superior/CNAVES). This is the institution in charge of publishing the partial reports accompanied by a synthesis report for each scientific field. It is from the 2004 Global Synthesis Report that the following data are collected.

3.1

The Structure of Degrees and Curricula

The degrees are broad-banded and generally provide with specialist pathways, as it is possible to check on the table in which one can also find their year of foundation. Table 1: Universities and their structure of degrees and curricula University

Degree

Year of foundation

Minho

International Relations

1975 (various refor- x mulations – the latest in 2002) x

Independente

International Relations

1995

Nova Lusíada (Lisboa)

Political Science & Inter- 1996/97 national Relations Political science 1995/96

Lusíada (Lisboa)

International Relations

1988

x x x x x x x x

Branches / specialist pathways International Relations – Political and Cultural Relations International Relations – Political and Economic Relations European Studies International Cooperation Political Science International Relations Comparative Politics Public Administration (Civil Service) Political and Economic Relations International Cooperation and Development

Political Science in Portugal

321

Table 1: (cont’d) University ISCSP

Degree International Relations

Year of foundation 1982

x x x x x x

ISCSP

Political Science

1998

x x x

Lusófona

Political Science

1991

x x x

Coimbra

International Relations

x 1994 (reformulation x of the curriculum in 2000/01) x x

Autónoma

International Relations

1990 (?)

x x x

Fernando Pessoa Moderna Internacional Lusíada (Porto)

International Relations European Studies Political science International Relations

1997 1991 1993 In Porto since 1991 x x

Branches / specialist pathways Political and Cultural Relations Political and Economic Relations International Strategy of the Firm International Politics and Cultural Areas Society and Economy in Africa and Asia Society and Economy in Latin America Management of Political Decision Sociology of the Opinion Movements International Politics with Domestic Relevance Theory and Methodology of Political Science State and Public Administration (Civil Service) Public Opinion and Electoral Sciences International Relations Asylum and Refugees in the International System International Dimensions of Corporate Activities Foreign Policy of the European Union Seminar on strategic matters Seminar on economic problems Seminar on Portugal and contemporary world − − − Political and Economic Relations International Cooperation and Development

As one can see, the Political Science degrees are more recent than the International Relation ones. This circumstance makes their assessment more diffi-

Adriano Moreira

322

cult, and on top of that the market shows little sensitivity towards this crucial domain of training of both national and international cadres. Political Science is present in the context of the Portuguese University in three formats: in Public Administration (Civil Service) degrees, in International Relations degrees and in Political Science degrees. The latter are the most recent as far as their introduction is concerned and they distinctly reflect the intention to deepen the study of the political phenomenon beyond the state administration and the relations among states and the entities which intend to influence the states’ international actions, in its core they are associated with a complex of processes that have to do with power, the bases of power, the access to power, the use of power, the clash of interests developing in the area of power.

3.2

The Bologna Process

Among the criteria guiding the institutional visits for assessment we must take into account the hearing of institutions about their sensitivity regarding the process of higher education standardisation occurring at the European level, as well as about the concrete measures already taken to implement it. In one of the assessed cases, that of the degree in Political Science and International Relations of the Lisbon New University, the introduction of the major/minor regime seems to correspond to an adequate structure having in mind what in any case can be anticipated to take place at the European level. This regime, though already implemented at the time of the institutional visit, had not yet been introduced in the academic year serving as the base for the Self-Assessment Report. Globally, it is possible to sustain that there is some interest and a few concrete measures already taken in order to answer to the challenge of the harmonization of the European system, though there is also much lack of information. It is beyond doubt though that all the degrees must pay urgent and coherent attention to this subject matter, especially in what regards the crucial reformulations for competitiveness connected to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and semestrialization. In the existing degrees there is a common focus on the study of political ideas and the different schools of thought inspiring the ideologies governing political action, as well as special attention paid to social phenomena affecting the formation of public opinion, to the importance of following the trends guiding that opinion and to the indicators coming out of voting processes. All the degrees operating in the year serving as object to the assessment develop specialized branches in their last years.

Political Science in Portugal

323

One of them accommodates in its fourth year, coming out of its latest reformulation not yet completely implemented in the year serving as object, the option for Political Science Methodology and Theory, State and Public Administration, Public Opinion and Electoral Sciences and International Relations. In the year serving as object the options were International Relations, Public Opinion and Electoral Sciences and also Political Institutions and Public Administration, though in that year only the latter could be made operational. A different degree opens up, in its third and fourth years, in two branches: Comparative Politics and Public Administration. Yet another degree focuses more precisely on the core of the process of power, offering the students, beyond the basic training, groupings of optional disciplines organized around three broad subject matters: Management of Political Decision-Making, Sociology of Opinion Formation and International Politics with Domestic Relevance. The difficulty of employability which affects the students graduating in Political Science is due to the fact that these degrees are recent and, moreover, that the professional skills of these graduates are not yet sufficiently well known to the market. The subject matter constituting the axis of all these degrees is of the highest importance to Portuguese society as well as to the understanding of the structure and conjuncture of power operating within it. It is then possible to firmly foresee that it will not take long until the prospective employers realise how helpful Political Science graduates can be in those tasks in which they come to be integrated. At such a growth phase as the present one is, the teaching of this subject matter deserves being supported in continuation, until it eventually seizes the much needed autonomy making it able to self-sustain its course.

References Burdeau, Georges (1949): Traité de Science Politique. La démocratie ou les contraintes du nouvel âge, Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence (LGDJ). Caetano, Marcello (1931): Lições de Direito Corporativo, Lisbon: Bertrand. Caetano, Marcello (1936): Perspectivas, Lisbon: Bertrand. Canotilho, Gomes (2005): Desafios à Igreja de Bento XVI, Lisbon: Casa das Letras. Moreira, Adriano (1951): Direito Corporativo, Lisbon: ISCSP. Salazar, Oliveira (1938): “O Estado Novo Português na Evolução Política Europeia”, Discursos Vol. I, Coimbra Editora. Teixeira Ribeiro (1938): Lições de Direito Corporativo, Coimbra Editora.

The Current State of Political Science in Spain John Etherington / Francesc Morata

1 Introduction The university system in Spain differs from many of its Western European counterparts. While the latter were modernised in the context of liberaldemocratic welfare states, Spanish universities were under the yoke of the Franco dictatorship. Having purged many leading academics during and after the Civil War, the Franco regime kept tight control of the university system, effectively isolating it from developments in much of the Western world. This was especially felt in the field of political science, a discipline considered suspicious per se and, thus, unable to emerge and prosper like it had done in the United States and Western Europe in the post-war period. Indeed, the Universidad Complutense de Madrid was the only institution allowed to award degrees in political science, and even then the content of the curriculum was very much restricted for political reasons. To avoid political controversy the dominant approach to the subject was legalistic and constitutionalist. Since the transition from dictatorship to parliamentary democracy and the emergence of the welfare state in Spain, the Spanish university system has undergone major changes, none more so than the opening of the universities to give access to more students, in an attempt to “democratise” the academic institutions that were seen to be reserved for elites. This is not to say, however, that financing has kept pace. Spanish university funding is still below OECD average, although funding per student is gradually rising, because, on the one hand, more money is being made available and, on the other, student numbers have fallen due the “demographic crisis” associated with plunging birth rates. Political science has to a large extent mirrored such trends, although with a certain time gap. While disciplines such as sociology started from a stronger base, many political science degrees were only offered from the late 1980s onwards, as many new faculties were established across the country. Student numbers have matched this trend, rising steadily from the beginning of the 1980s until the mid-1990s, since which time the figure has levelled off.

326

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

In terms of how the university system works, state bureaucratic control allied with corporatist interests have meant that there has been more continuity with the dictatorship period than would be desirable. While the principle of “university autonomy” is an enshrined legal principle to avoid overt intrusion of the state in university affairs, access to university education, degrees offered, and curricula are even today mostly decided by the state, with the universities coming under the aegis of administrative law. A further factor that must be taken into account is the process of political and administrative decentralisation in Spain. Although basic legislation remains a monopoly of the central state, the regional level of government is becoming more and more involved in various aspects of university life. Confusion and even confrontation between the central government and certain regional governments over policy competencies and finance is an added complication for the university system. This is of importance especially now as attempts are made to harmonize degree structures with other European countries in the context of the Bologna Process. Within this overall context, we shall now turn to a more detailed analysis of political science in Spain, focussing on the teaching and research activities.

2 Teaching 2.1 Access For students, admission to university depends on the combined grades of coursework over the previous two years, the bachillerato, with a university entrance exam, the University Admission Test, that is basically standardized throughout Spain. During their final two years at school, students are asked to choose from one of five modules: scientific-technical, health sciences, humanities, social sciences, and arts. Each one of these modules has a corresponding University Admissions Test. Thus, a student wishing to study Political and Administration Sciences (PAS), would take the social sciences module in the final two years, and then go on to take the social sciences module of the University Admissions Test. The grades needed to gain admission depend on supply and demand, although a minimum grade of 5/10 is required. Thus, if a university offers 150 places, the cut-off point corresponds to the grade of the 150th student in the order of ranking. In terms of administration of admissions, access to undergraduate PAS studies in Spain is patchwork. In the regions of Andalusia, Catalonia, and Galicia, universities have jointly ceded the administration of university admissions to the regional government, thus effectively centralising the proc-

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

327

ess. In the rest of Spain, no such system exists, and it is the individual universities which take responsibility for admissions. As far as foreign students are concerned, these must first have their secondary-school studies “validated”, either directly by the Spanish Ministry of Education or through the relevant Spanish embassy. Having successfully overcome this hurdle, students must then take the University Admissions Test. For foreign students, this is organised by the distance-learning university, the Unversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Access to postgraduate studies is much less regulated, and mostly depends on the access criteria set by the departments and schools offering the programmes, although an undergraduate degree in a relevant subject is usually regarded as a minimum requirement. For students from abroad − except in the case of the unregulated Master degrees − the process is much more complicated, since degrees awarded outside Spain must be “validated” by the Spanish state. The process of validation means that, if one is to have one’s degree recognised in Spain, an equivalent degree must be found within the Spanish system. If this occurs, one receives a certificate from the Ministry of Education which serves, along with the original, as a degree certificate for official purposes. Certain flexibility exists at the point of entry, but the postgraduate studies in question, for example a doctorate, will only be legally recognised in Spain if previous studies have been successfully validated. In line with the Bologna Process, the Spanish government is taking steps to reduce the red tape involved in the validation process, although the legal requirements will not disappear altogether.

2.2

Degree Structures and Content

The discussion of degree structures and content of curricula must – first and foremost – take into account the degree of state control over a whole range of questions related to form and content of university degrees in Spain. In terms of curricula, the first thing to note is that all university degrees must have their content approved by the central state, with “official status” only granted once it has been published in the Official Bulletin of the State (BOE). Given the complicated nature of the procedure, it is almost impossible to change curricula from one year to the next, thus making it very difficult for faculties to adapt degree content to the state of the art in the discipline. Undergraduate degrees (licenciaturas) in PAS generally consist of 300 credits spread over four years, with each credit being the equivalent of 10 hours of class time. Degrees are divided into two cycles lasting two years each. The first is of a more general in nature, which in the case of PAS includes courses from sociology, law, history and economics (see Table 2),

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

328

while the second allows students to specialise in specific aspects of the discipline. Some universities only offer second cycles (Table 1), with access being conditional on students having completed the first cycle of a related degree or on being graduates. Table 1: Universities offering degree studies in Political and Administration Sciences (2005/06) University Autònoma de Barcelona Autònoma de Madrid Barcelona Barcelona Burgos Carlos III de Madrid Complutense de Madrid Complutense de Madrid Granada Granada Miguel de Hernández de Elche Miguel de Hernández de Elche Murcia Murcia Pablo de Olavide (Seville) País Vasco País Vasco Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona) Salamanca Santiago de Compostela Santiago de Compostela Valencia Estudi General Valencia Estudi General

Source:

Faculty Political Science and Sociology Law Law Law Law Social and Juridical Sciences Political Science and Sociology Political Science and Sociology Political Science and Sociology Political Science and Sociology Social and Juridical Sciences

Cycle 1st and 2nd

Number of places

2nd 1st and 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st and 2nd

105 80 80 No limit 60

1st and 2nd

Social and Juridical Sciences

2nd

Law Law Law Social and Communication Sciences Social and Communication Sciences Social and Communication Sciences Law Political and Social Sciences Political and Social Sciences Law Law

1st and 2nd 2nd 1st and 2nd 1st and 2nd

2nd 1st and 2nd 2nd

2nd 1st and 2nd 2nd 1st and 2nd 2nd 1st and 2nd 2nd

140

380 50 225 50 71 No limit No limit No limit 60 No limit No limit 160 No limit No limit No limit 80 80

Ministerio de Educación (Internet: http://www.mec.es/univ/index.html).

Further state control is exercised in the way in which all courses are divided into different categories: core, obligatory, optional and free choice. The former, which currently represent over 30 percent of the total number of credits for PAS undergraduate degrees, are decided by the state and are thus common to all PAS degrees. Obligatory courses are designed by each university and represent less than 30 percent of total credits, with the remaining credits

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

329

divided between optional courses and free-choice courses that allow students to choose courses from outside the faculty in which the degree is offered. The majority of core and obligatory courses are taken during the first cycle, when students have no choice, while the second cycle involves a mixture of all four types of courses. Table 2: Curriculum of Political and Administration Sciences at the UAB (2005/06) First cycle (139.5 credits) First year (60 credits) 1st term 25198 25199 25200 25201 25202 25203

2nd term

Political Science (full year) (core) Political Economy (full year) (core) Modern History (full year) (core) General Sociology (full year) (core) Basic Maths and Statistics (core) 6 25204 Spanish Politics I (core) Applied Aspects I (oblig.) 4.5 25205 Applied Aspects II (oblig.)

Second year (79.5 credits) 1st term 25261 25210 25260 20846 25206 25211

Credits 10.5 9 9 10.5 6 4.5

2nd term

International Relations (full year) (core) English (full year) (oblig.) Introduction to Law (core) 4.5 25266 Economic Policy I (oblig.) Political Thought (oblig.) 6 25265 Research Techniques I (core) Social Structure I (oblig.) 6 25263 Public Administration Science (core) Demography (oblig.) 6 25267 Political Theory I (oblig.) 26584 Applied Aspects III (oblig.)

Credits 10.5 15 7.5 6 6 7.5 4.5

Second cycle (160.5 credits) Third year (84 credits) 1st term 25272 25268 25271 25270 25274 25269 25273

2nd term

Spanish Politics II (core) 6 25275 Administrative Law (core) Public Policy Analysis I (core) 6 25277 Public Finance I (core) Spanish Economy (core) 6 25276 International Economy (core) Constitutional Law (core) 6 25278 Comparative Politics I (core) European International Politics 7.5 25279 Public Management (oblig.) Political Behaviour (core) 6 20870 Spanish Foreign Policy (oblig.) Seminars on Professional Skills I (full year) (oblig.)

Fourth year (76.5 credits) 25286 12 credits to choose from: 22905 23793 25232

Seminars on Professional Skills II (oblig.) Professional Experience Stage in University Abroad Practical Classes in Social Sciences I

Credits 6 6 6 6 7.5 6 9

4.5 12 12 6

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

330

Table 2: (cont’d) 25235 Practical Classes in Social Sciences II 24 optional credits to choose from one or more of the specialisations 36 free-choice credits

6

Specialisations Students must take 24 optional credits from the same or different specialisations. Each course represents 6 credits. Political Analysis 20842 Political Participation 20843 Political Parties

Public Administration and Policy International Relations 20825 Public Policy Analysis II 20857 International Relations Theory 20852 Current Issues in Public 20867 International Administration Organisations 20853 Organisation Theory 20869 Foreign Policy Analysis

25296 Interest Groups and Political and Social Movements 20845 Communication and 20855 Intergovernmental Public Opinion Relations 25309 Research Techniques II 20856 Local Government 20849 Political Theory II 20858 Public Management Evaluation 20864 Current Issues in Politi- 25298 Public Institutions of cal Analysis Catalonia 21112 Comparative Politics II 20860 Economic Policy II 20861 Public Finance II

20871 EU Institutions 20872 EU Policies 20873 International Public Law 20874 International Trade 20875 Conflict Analysis 20877 Current Issues in International Relations

Whole degree: 300 credits. Master degrees have not yet been formally recognised and, thus, have remained outside state regulation. In general, however, Master studies consist of between 50 and 60 credits, including course work and dissertation, spread over one or two years. Doctoral studies are officially recognised and, thus, are subject to state regulation and public – subsidised − prices. As an alternative to Master, the first two years of doctoral studies comprise courses or seminars and a dissertation to be completed by the second year, before students can go on to undertake research on a doctoral thesis1. The main question here, at least in terms of future developments, concerns how the Bologna Process will affect the university system. While no final decisions have been taken, the general direction of current policy appears to be that undergraduate degrees will consist of one cycle only; Master degrees will be officially recognised and regulated, and will constitute the second cycle; and doctoral studies (which will probably no longer involve

1

For an up-to-date survey, see Etherington/Morata (2005).

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

331

courses or seminars) will constitute the third cycle. The current proposal is that PAS degrees will consist of 240 European credits (ECTS) spread over four years, and that Master will be of 60 ECTS to be gained over one to two years. Thus, students will have to successfully complete 300 ECTS before being able to undertake doctoral studies. One of the main differences with respect to current arrangements is that whereas in the traditional Spanish system, credits are solely based on hours spent in the lecture hall or seminar room, the new ECTS place greater emphasis on work done outside classes. Thus, one ECTS will come to represent approximately seven hours of classes and three hours of work done outside the classroom. Inevitably, this requires a greater degree of continuous evaluation, closer supervision, and better tutoring of students by the academic staff. Various pilot programmes have begun, but at least two problems have already emerged. The first concerns legal-bureaucratic restrictions, whereby no changes to curricula can be made without legal approval and, thus, pilot programmes have to fit into the existing curricula, which leaves little room for reform. Second, very little funding has thus far been made available. If the aim is to enable more “quality” contact between teachers and students, physical changes will have to be made to ensure the availability of a proper infrastructure, and the number of teachers would also have to increase. Overcoming such problems is one of the many challenges that Spanish government and university administrations have to face. In addition, it should be pointed out that negotiations between faculties offering PAS studies and the Consejo de Coordinación Universitaria (Council of University Coordination, an administrative body controlled by the Ministry of Education) concerning the implications of the Bologna Process for PAS studies, resulted in a proposal by the Consejo to raise the proportion of core credits from 30 percent to approximately 50 percent, further reducing the autonomy and flexibility of faculties to design and update curricula.

2.3

Centres Offering PAS Degrees

Currently, PAS is offered by 15 different faculties at Spanish universities (cf. Table 1). Of these, the vast majority offer both first and second cycles, while three offer second-cycle studies only. As already noted, with the exception of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, most PAS degrees have only been offered since the late 1980s. This is reflected in student numbers, which have gone up from just over 2,000 political science students at the beginning of the 1980s, to a figure of over 12,000 today. While this figure has levelled off over recent years, PAS student numbers have avoided the decline of other disciplines such as law. Today, we can observe increased competition be-

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

332

Table 3: Spanish universities offering doctoral studies in political science and related fields University

Department

Universitat Autònoma Political Science and de Barcelona (UAB) Public Law

Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UAM) Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UAM) Universitat de Barcelona (UB) Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Political Science and International Relations Political Science and International Relations Constitutional Law and Political Science Political and Administration Sciences I Ortega y Gasset University Institute Political and Administration Sciences II Political and Administration Sciences II Applied Economics and Political and Administration Sciences III

Programme Doctorate in Political and Administration Sciences: Thinking and Governing in Complex Societies Doctorate In Political Theory, Democratic Theory and Public Administration Doctorate in International and African Studies Doctorate in Political Science

Democracy: Past, Present and Future Government and Public Administration Political Conflict and Peace Processes Government, Administration and Public Policy State and Market: Territorial Reorganization in the Framework of the European Convention Universidad de Gra- Political and Administra- Socio-Political Analysis of nada tion Sciences Contemporary Society Universidad de Political and Administra- The European Union: Social Murcia tion Sciences and and Political Change Sociology Universidad Nacional Political and Administra- Politics and Government de Educación a tion Sciences Distancia (UNED) Universitat Pompeu Department of Political Doctorate in Political and Fabra, Barcelona and Social Sciences Social Sciences Universidad del País Political and Administra- Government and Comparative Vasco tion Sciences Political Analysis Universidad de Sala- General Public Law Contemporary Political manca Processes Universidad de Santi- Political and Administra- Contemporary Political ago de Compostela tion Sciences Processes Fundación Juan Centre for Advanced −a March Study in the Social Sciences (CASSS)

a

Number of students (max. per year) 16

120

90

12 20 35 16 30 50

40 15

-

20 12 18 30 6

Given that the CASSS is a private institute, for doctorates to be recognised, students must be formally enrolled in an officially-recognised doctoral programme.

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

333

tween faculties to attract students. This has resulted in a decline in the “quality” of students – at least a priori, since in order to fill their places, most faculties have seen the minimum admission qualifications lowered. If demand declines, or supply rises further, then some faculties will be increasingly unable to fill the places they offer. In terms of postgraduate studies, which are offered not by faculties but by departments, the range is similar to that of undergraduate studies. However, in the case of Master degrees, it is most difficult to make an overall assessment, since, in the absence of regulation by the state, curricula and denominations change from year to year, with some not being offered every year. Another consequence of the lack of regulation of Master degrees is that unlike regulated studies, they are often inter- or multidisciplinary by nature, which makes it rather difficult to categorise them. Doctoral degrees are another matter, however. The legal requirements, while not as stringent as licenciaturas, nonetheless make them much less interdisciplinary and thus easier to identify. Table 3 provides a list of the doctoral studies offered in Spain. It can be noted that with the exception of the Centre for the Advanced Study in Social Sciences, all doctoral programmes are located in those centres that also offer undergraduate degrees. Thus, it is of no surprise to learn that doctoral studies in such centres have emerged parallel to undergraduate degrees, and it has only been since the late 1980s and early 1990s that the full range of studies described here has been taught. Information on the development of student numbers is hard to come by, although comments by colleagues indicate a tendency towards a decline at certain centres. In line with developments in the rest of Europe, Spain is gradually increasing the degree of external evaluation to which doctoral programmes are submitted. In this respect, some doctoral programmes in political science, such as those of the located at Autonomous Universities of Barcelona and Madrid, at the Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona and at the Universities of Granada and Complutense of Madrid have recently deserved an official “quality label” (mención de calidad) from the Spanish Education Ministry. Moreover, most of departments and institutes of political science are members of European and international research networks. The latter usually include exchange programmes with Latin American universities, which have become the main providers of foreign PhD students.

3 Research Research activities are undertaken by the academic staff in university departments and institutes, as part of its normal obligations. Research perform-

334

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

ance and evaluation are important in career advancement although no specific research positions exist as a general rule. However, as part of the modernization of research policy which is being promoted by the central government and some autonomous communities, there is an increasing, but still very limited number of junior and senior research positions in social sciences funded through the “Ramon y Cajal” and the “Juan de la Cierva” programmes (central government) or the ICREA Programme (Catalan government). The Ramon y Cajal Programme is designed to hire senior scholars in academic areas to work in university centres for five years. Candidate researchers must meet a number of requirements (i.e., a PhD degree obtained 10 years before the application deadline or past experience in research centres other than those hiring them through the programme). After the call has been published, both centres and individual researchers can submit their applications within the stated period. Assessment committees are in charge of evaluating the candidates. These committees, which operate within the National Agency of Assessment and Prospects (ANECA), evaluate and rank candidates according to different criteria (cv, postdoctoral stays). At the end of the initial five-year contract period, universities should incorporate the Ramon y Cajal fellows into their own staff with research and also teaching duties. The government of Catalonia, like some other regional governments, has created its own agency responsible for managing research grants within the framework of the regional Research and Development Plan. These include the funding of research groups in political science and other social science disciplines and giving priority to research projects submitted to the Catalan Ministry for Research and Innovation Society. As a general rule, PhD students in political science can apply to both levels of government to get a four year grant on the basis of a research proposal to be carried out in a university department or institute. All in all, the Ministry of Education and Science is the most helpful institution in providing systematic support for research projects and funding for PhD theses. The second most important institution is the European Union (EU) through the General Research Framework and other specific programmes. The other main sources of financing are the regional governments and the universities. Some banks, as for example the BBVA, “La Caixa”, Caixa Catalunya or Caja Madrid regularly offer grants for young researchers, collective research projects and stays abroad. Some of them collaborate also with research centres funding postdoctoral research contracts. However, while there are apparently so many public and private institutions accessible that offer some funding, in practice little priority is still given to research on matters related to political science. As no special council exists for social sciences research, political science applications have to compete with economics, other social sciences and humanities. The relatively late

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

335

recognition of political science as a discipline in the institutional set-up of university teaching can explain the marginal position held by research projects related to the field. Nevertheless, over the past 10 years or so many universities have been active in launching doctoral and Master programmes (see above and Table 3) sometimes in connection with research and training institutes such as the Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials (ICPS), the Institut de Govern i Polítiques (IGOP) and the Institut Universitari d’Estudis Europeus (IUEE) in Barcelona, and the Instituto Ortega y Gasset, Fundación Juan March and the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (Madrid). In general, these institutions do not have permanent research positions. Research staff normally belongs to university departments, with which these institutes and foundations have special agreements. Only IESA − attached to the CSIC (the Spanish General Council for Scientific Research) − has a few permanent researchers in political science and sociology, without teaching duties. Research interests in political science cover most studies areas, although elections and parties, political culture and values, political decentralisation and policy analysis are the preferred fields for research projects. Regional studies also are a main feature of political science research, as an expression of the multi-level structure of the Spanish polity. With regard to comparative politics, Latin America and, more recently, European studies are the main research areas. There is no central institution for the archive of social sciences data. The most important data archive is held by the CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas)2, where data produced by regular opinion surveys are stored. The CEO (Centre d’Estudis d’Opinió), established in 2005, carries out similar tasks in Catalonia.

4 Professional Communication 4.1

Associations

The creation, in 1993, of the Spanish Political Science and Administration Association (Asociación Española de Ciencia Política y de la Administración, AECPA) reflected the increasing importance of political science studies in the Spanish university system. According to its founding principles, the AECPA3 aims at promoting the development of the discipline, improving training methodologies and teaching abilities, and fostering research 2 3

See Internet: http://www.cis.es/home1024.aspx, last accessed on 15.11.2005. See Internet: http://www.aecpa.es/, last accessed on 15.11.2005.

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

336

and cooperation among academics and experts. One of its main objectives is to disseminate Spanish activities abroad including the establishment of closer relations with other associations both at the national and the international level. With a membership of over 500 political science professors, students, and public administrators, AECPA holds biannual conferences in different Spanish cities around an outstanding topic (Table 4). General conferences are organised, by research areas, in workshops lasting two or three days. The workshops are designed to be a forum for discussion on research in progress. They gather approximately 10 to 15 participants from several institutions4. The AECPA is a member of the International Political Science Association (IPSA), the European Political Science Network (epsNet) and the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR). Table 4: AECPA general conferences Place Bilbao Santiago de Compostela Salamanca

Granada La Laguna, Tenerife Barcelona Madrid

Date December 1994

Title “Política y Democracia en la España de los 90” (Politics and Democracy in the Spain of the ‘90s) April 1996 “Democracia y Administración” (Democracy and Public Administration) October 1997 “Gobernabilidad y Representación en las Democracias” (Governability and Representation in Democratic Societies) September 1998 “Política y Comunicación en la Sociedad Global” (Politics and Communication in the Global Society) September 2001 “Ciudadanía y Políticas de Integración” (Citizenship and Integration Policies) September 2003 “Gobernar en Europa, Gobernar Europa” (Governing in Europe, Governing Europe) September 2005. “Democracia y buen Gobierno” (Democracy and Good Governance)

Political scientists, together with sociologists, are also professionally organised on a national and a regional basis through Doctoral and Graduate Associations (Colegios de Doctores y Licenciados). The Spanish Colegio is one of the founding members of the “Organización Iberoamericana de Ciencia Política” (OICP), the Latin American Association of Political Science. The regional Colegios regularly organise activities such as conferences, debates, roundtables and training courses. They also annually award doctoral thesis to stimulate research among young scholars. Considering the current process towards a European Space of Higher Education and the increasing exchange in training and research activities among European scholars, the emergence of a European Political Science

4

For a full list of workshops for the 2005 conference, see Internet: http://www. aecpa.es/congreso05/index.php, last accessed on 20.11.2005.

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

337

Association would be viewed as a promising professional tool by most of Spanish political scientists.

4.2

Journals and Periodicals

The Revista Española de Ciencia Política (RECP)5 is the official publication of the AECPA. Since its foundation in 1998, the journal, which is published on a biannual basis, is one of the main channels in Spanish for disseminating research conducted in political science, public administration, political theory and other related topics in Spain and abroad. The editorial team of the journal includes a range of specialists covering the major sub disciplines of political science in Spain. Each issue contains 8-10 articles and a book-review section. Articles appearing in the journal are abstracted and indexed in ISOC-CSIC, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Latindex, and OCL Firstsearch. Although it covers political as well as juridical issues, the Revista de Estudios Políticos (REP), edited by the Centre of Constitutional Studies (Centro de Estudios Constitucionales), is a pioneer journal on political science studies, created already in 1940 during Franco’s regime. It has been recently updated to comply with international standards criteria. Although there are some regional journals sponsored by the autonomous communities dealing with public administration and management issues from different analytical perspectives, Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas (GAPP), attached to the National Institute of Public Administration (INAP) is the main journal on public administration and policy analysis. GAPP has also renewed both its editorial board and its contents to adapt to international standards.

5 The Future of Political Science in Spain After a period of rapid expansion throughout most of the 1990s, political science in Spain is currently undergoing a period of consolidation in terms of both teaching undergraduate and postgraduate, and of research. To finalise this chapter, we would now like to introduce a brief discussion concerning the prospects for the discipline over the coming years. In terms of teaching, the major challenge facing the discipline of political science, and indeed virtually all disciplines in the Spanish university system, is the implementation of the European Space for Higher Education. As we have seen, at a general level no final decision has been taken by the relevant 5

See Internet: http://www.aecpa.es/revista/recp.html, last accessed on 20.11.2005.

338

John Etherington / Francesc Morata

political actors as to the new legal framework, but whatever the exact nature of the framework, there are good reasons to believe that the quality of teaching will be improved. Such optimism is based on the belief that the current model of undergraduate teaching, based on lectures, large groups, little contact time between staff and students, and final exams, will be replaced by a more student-friendly model of fewer lectures, more seminaries and a greater degree of continuous evaluation. With respect to postgraduate studies, the effects of the ESHE are more uncertain. As degrees are shortened, from four to five years down to three to four years, the new, publicly-funded Master degrees run the risk of being a mere continuation of undergraduate studies, instead of offering specialisation and an altogether different learning experience. Doctoral programmes, for their part, also face major changes, given that in all probability they will no longer include taught courses. Within the context of a greater degree of external evaluation, this could well mean greater pressure for departments organising doctorates to ensure shorter completion times for theses and for such theses to be of greater overall quality than is currently the case. In terms of research, political science is currently benefiting from the new generations of researchers coming up through the system. The majority are graduates from the new faculties, some of which have been able to broaden their studies outside Spain. This has meant that there has been a marked increase in both the quantity and quality of political science research in recent years, and an engagement with international research networks. In addition, the AECP conferences and the journal, RECP, have established themselves over the last decade or so both within Spain and abroad, reflecting and promoting the increasing quality of research work. The further development of programmes such as the “Ramon y Cajal” and the “Juan de la Cierva” can only continue this trend of improvement provided that they pay more attention to political scientists’ applications. However, political science in Spain, like so many other disciplines in the Spanish university system still suffers from structural problems compared with those countries that have been in the vanguard. The first and most obvious problem concerns the amount of funding available for both teaching and research. Unless the sums involved are increased substantially, then Spanish universities in general, and political science faculties and departments in particular, will find it increasingly difficult to compete against better-funded universities from overseas. The second problem relates to how funding is awarded. At present, while there has been a timid advance in this direction, the vast majority of funding for universities remains unattached to performance. Although political science is fortunate, as we have seen, to be able to count on new generations of well-trained, enthusiastic staff, without methods of linking funding to performance in teaching and research, there is no guarantee that, if any new funding becomes available, it will produce the ex-

The Current State of Political Science in Spain

339

pected results. The final problem concerns the nature of the university system itself within which political science, like any other discipline must operate. The system remains based on a state-led bureaucratic model, which inevitably reduces the capacity of individual departments, faculties and universities to adapt to changing circumstances If the Spanish university system can overcome these challenges, then, in our opinion, the discipline of political science can build on the solid foundations laid down over the last two decades.

References Etherington, John and Francesc Morata (2005): “Doctoral Studies in Spain”, in: Michael Goldsmith (ed.): Doctoral Studies in Political Science. A European Comparison, Budapest: epsNet.

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

1 Introduction Political science is often described as a young discipline. It developed into one of the major disciplines within the social science faculties after World War II after a modest beginning in the latter part of the 19th century, sometimes more or less from scratch. With roots in the early 17th century, Swedish political science would seem to be a deviant case. The Johan Skytte Chair in Eloquence and Government at the University of Uppsala, founded in 1622 as a chair in eloquence and politics, is frequently referred to as marking the birth of a new discipline. This is not quite true. The donor, who gave his name to the new chair, wanted to promote eloquence among Swedish civil servants and diplomats, and the professor of politics and eloquence initially presided over what may be described as a professional training programme rather different from modern political science, yet somehow related to it. More importantly, the chair provided an organisational platform for the new discipline, the contours of which were readily visible in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It was a discipline with a distinct focus on government and governmental institutions, inspired by well established disciplines like philosophy, history and constitutional law. It was to remain a basically “soft” science until well after the World War II (Anckar 1987, 1991; Wittrock 1992; Jönsson 1993; Nygren 1996).

1.1

The Formation of a New Discipline

Founded in 1477, Uppsala is Sweden’s oldest university followed by Lund almost two centuries later (1666), less than a decade after the incorporation of the Danish provinces north of the Strait of Øresund, since then separating Sweden and Denmark. Political science was introduced here in 1877. Pontus Fahlbeck – founder of Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, a professional journal of lasting relevance, published in Lund – served as professor of political science for almost three formative decades (1889-1917). Technically, Uppsala and Lund had no competition until universities were founded in Gothenburg and Stockholm in 1954 and 1960, respectively. But the new universities were not built from scratch. Gothenburg and Stock-

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

342

holm had both university colleges before they were given full university privileges; and political science featured prominently among the subjects taught at the university colleges. Rudolf Kjellén – a controversial scholar and rightwing politician – thus became founding professor of political science in Gothenburg already in 1901. Kjellén subsequently (1916) accepted a call from Uppsala to take on the vacant position as Professor Skytteanus – a position he held until his death in 1922. His successor and detractor, Axel Brusewitz, was to serve for almost a quarter century (1923-1947) and thus had many opportunities to get his message across, including an all-out rejection of his predecessor and everything he stood for. Stockholm did not get a political science professorship until 1935, when Herbert Tingsten – Sweden’s probably best known and most renowned political scientist – was appointed by the university college. Most of his works revolved around the history of political ideas, political ideologies and the problems of democracy (e.g., Tingsten 1960, 1965, 1967, 1973), but he was also one of the very first within the profession, not just in Sweden, to realise the potential of quantitative analyses of aggregate socio-economic and electoral data (Tingsten 1937/ 1975). Tingsten left his chair for a second career as editor in chief of Dagens Nyheter, one out of two major daily newspapers with national coverage in 1946 but remained an active participant in the political debate and, for that matter, the debate within the political science community for the rest of his life. The Swedish political science community was small, but so were most university departments at this juncture. For all intents and purposes, there were four political science departments already before World War II; the discipline covered a broad range of topics of obvious relevance for the current political agenda, and the discipline was frequently at the very centre of the political debate.

1.2

Defining Research Agendas

Political science is a discipline strongly marked by the nation-state. By the end of World War II, it had carved out niches for itself in constitutional theory, institutionalism and the history of political ideas, but it had little to offer hypothetical students within more recent sub-disciplines such as international politics and comparative politics. Kjellén’s controversial geo-political theories represent an isolated attempt to put the European balance of power into a broad macro-political perspective (Kjellén 1921). Once promoted by the Nazi regime in Germany, geo-politics had come badly damaged out of the war; justly or unjustly, it had fallen into disrepute also in Sweden and lost whatever appeal it might have had on young and upcoming generations of political scientists.

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

343

Herbert Tingsten was a more likely role model, even though he went commercial after little more than a decade as Lars Johan Hierta professor of political science at Stockholm University. Tingsten was an unusually gifted scholar with a well developed sense not only for the academic discipline but also for the craft; he thrived on political debates and controversy and thoroughly enjoyed defeating his opponents, but he was open to new arguments and ready to change his mind. It is impossible to extricate or disentangle Herbert Tingsten, the political scientist, from Herbert Tingsten, the newspaper man, or any of the other roles he played. On the basis of his academic record, the authors of this paper are inclined to see Herbert Tingsten as Sweden’s first modern political scientist. In retrospect, Tingsten qualifies for attention on at least two counts. His first major contribution was within the field of electoral studies, a sub-discipline far removed from mainstream political science at this point in time. We are referring to Political Behaviour: Studies in Election Statistics (1937/ 1975), published in the USA, in English and for an international audience, a commendable but unusual publication strategy for a leading representative of a state-centred, inward-looking discipline. Drawing on electoral statistics and census data from downtown Stockholm, Tingsten makes a number of astute and frequently quoted inferences about the impact of contextual factors on voting behaviour. Had it been published in the late 1950s or early 1960s, this remarkable piece of work might possibly have been dismissed as mainstream. But when put into the context of the late 1930s, it stands out as distinctly innovative. Herbert Tingsten was in a sense a forerunner of the behavioural revolution long before the term had been coined. In his choice of topics within the sub-disciplines that he made into his own, mainly political theory and the history of political ideas, Tingsten is guided by a strong personal commitment to parliamentary democracy and a keen interest in the ongoing struggle between democracy and dictatorship before, during and, for that matter, after World War II (e.g., Tingsten 1965). Few, if any, Swedish political scientists have done more than Herbert Tingsten to make democracy, its problems, enemies and long-term prospects, a top research priority. Looking back at an academic career covering almost half a century of Swedish political science, Olof Ruin, Lars Johan Hierta professor of political science (1976-1993), describes the 1950s and 1960s as dominated by a coalition of two departments or rather two department heads, Nils Stjernquist in Lund and Jörgen Westerståhl of Gothenburg (Ruin 2003). The dominance of this axis was partly a by-product of the low profile adopted by Stockholm and Uppsala. For Carl Arvid Hessler, Brusewitz’ successor as Professor Skytteanus, this was a deliberate choice; and caught up as it was in a seemingly endless struggle to fill the void left by Tingsten, the Stockholm department had few, if any, other options left. The power-sharing arrangement worked out by Stjernquist and Westerståhl, two leading political scientists

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

344

sometimes competing for the same top positions, albeit on somewhat different platforms, was the rational course of action for actors who had realised that they had more to gain by promoting co-operation rather than confrontation. At the time, Olof Ruin was part of a group of young “dissidents” within the small political science community at the department in Lund. This group counted a number of young scholars with promising careers literally around the corner. In this context Olof Ruin aligned himself with Hans Meijer, subsequently Lars Johan Hierta professor in Stockholm and Rector at the University of Linköping, Pär-Erik Back, subsequently founding professor of political science at the University of Umeå, and Hans F. Petersson, subsequently professor of international politics at Lund. It was a genuine dissident group in the sense that it struck out against the very core of the discipline as taught in Lund. The emphasis on constitutional law advocated by Fredrik Lagerroth and – to some extent – also by Nils Stjernquist, his successor and former student, came under fire. But so did the historical and largely descriptive tradition cultivated in Uppsala (Ruin 2003). In this rather bleak scientific context, American political science served as somewhat of beacon. Ruin specifically refers to US scholars such as Harold Lasswell and David Easton, representing a general and systematic approach (cf. Easton 1953, 1965, 1967). The behavioural revolution with its epicentre in American political science apparently was not that far away; and there was clearly enough pluralism and diversity within the small Swedish political science community to challenge at least some conventional wisdoms and established authorities. The breakthrough of behaviouralism in Sweden came in the 1960s. It was more profound and pervasive than in neighbouring Finland or, for that matter, than in Germany and France in continental Europe. Jörgen Westerståhl, Gothenburg, a former doctoral student of Herbert Tingsten, actively promoted this development from his position of strength within the profession, and thus made common cause with the “opposition” (Anckar 1987, 1991; Nygren 1996; Ruin 2003).

1.3

Towards Mass Education

The history of Swedish political science is to a large extent that of its professors. Professors were more powerful and enjoyed more prestige in the earlyand mid-1900s than half a century later. Democratisation has taken its toll and deprived the professors of their inalienable right to define higher education and run their departments as they see fit, and the definitive breakthrough of mass education in the late 1960s went towards undermining the exclusive and elevated position of the institutions of higher learning and their keepers even further (Elvander 1977; Fredriksson 1980; Ruin 2003).

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

345

This development was a function of two related factors: organisational size and organisational complexity. The organisational structure that was carried over into the post-war era just was not viable in the long run. It was tailor-made for a small-scale operation, revolving around a professor and his associates, usually a part-time assistant and possibly a full-time lecturer, with licence to determine what seminars to offer to a handful of students most of whom were satisfied with Candidate or Master degrees. Expansion became inevitable for the universities to match the growing demand for higher education. Expansion was gradual and piecemeal until the late 1960s, and it initially affected full professors only indirectly. The problem was diagnosed as “educational”, and the government responded to it by gradually recruiting a growing number of university lecturers. This was to be a fatal decision. It created a lasting gap between research and basic education. Swedish university lecturers today have a higher teaching load and less room for research than university lecturers anywhere else in Scandinavia. The discipline would have benefited from a more balanced expansion, favouring research as well as teaching, and from a less rigid division of labour between teaching and scholarly work.

1.4

Professors, Research and Teaching

Until recently, the title of professor was given to the successful candidate in an open race for a vacant chair, and to him or her alone. If the members of the committee appointed to screen the applicants for the position saw fit to do so, the committee report would include unambiguous and unequivocal statements about the competence of the individual applicants for such a top-level position in the academic hierarchy. Such statements were by no means unimportant. They had a symbolic value that might be translated into real money if the candidate played his/her cards skillfully in negotiations with his/her home university, but it did not give the thus favoured candidates the right to refer to themselves as professors. With the rare exception of government intervention, the title came with the formal appointment to a vacant chair. Restrictive regulations such as these made for a highly competitive climate within the profession. This climate still prevails, even though the stakes are not that high anymore. Universities are state-financed or state-controlled institutions subject to the same constraints of openness and transparency as are other public institutions in Sweden. The list of applicants and the verdict of the screening committee are therefore considered part of the public domain, open not only to the applicants but basically to anyone. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, the journal of the profession, has a long-standing tradition of publishing the written documentation submitted by professorial screening committees in extenso, and, though not the talk of the town, the explicit or

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

346

implicit rank order will be “hot news” within the Swedish political science community until the remaining top candidates go for the following vacancy. But some verdicts seem to lead lives of their own. Political scientists with a long record of serving the discipline sometimes turn out to have memorised quite a repertoire of sarcastic sound bites about fellow political scientists as described, decades ago, in blunt evaluations leaving little or nothing to the imagination of the readers. In most countries of the European Union (EU), this would be considered a violation of the integrity of the individual applicants, but not so in Sweden. The system now in force makes it possible for a tenured lecturer to apply for promotion to professor, whenever he/she sees fit. Applications for promotion are screened by an evaluation committee, using the very same criteria that apply to contested professorships. A professor with a chair, acquired in competition, and a professor without a chair, but promoted upon the recommendation of a screening committee, formally have the same professional standing. But – and this is the fundamental problem – they have rather different duties within the university organisation. Promotion has two almost palpable benefits for qualified lecturers: a prestigious title and a modest salary increase. But it does not buy them into the research organisation, and it does not reduce their teaching load to make room for research, unless this is indeed what the university and the department in question wants. This new option has undoubtedly had many positive effects. It has opened up career opportunities for the increasing number of academics in Sweden under actual or self-imposed mobility constraints. The palpable benefits may be small, but the importance of symbolic gratification should not be underestimated. Most importantly, though, it has contributed towards bridging the gap between research and teaching by making a combination of these activities stand out as the rule rather than the exception.

1.5

Recent Developments

The increasing demand for higher education in the 1960s resulted in an unprecedented expansion of student enrolment. Additional institutions of higher learning were badly needed. University colleges focusing exclusively on teaching undergraduate courses were part of the solution, but there was also an increasing awareness that four full universities with the right to recruit students, offer courses and programmes, and issue diplomas for all kinds of degrees, might not be enough for a country the size of Sweden. A fifth university had been founded in Umeå in 1965; Linköping University followed suit in 1975; and more recently, the university colleges of Karlstad, Växjö, and Örebro obtained full university privileges in 1999, followed by the Mid

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

347

Sweden University college with campuses in Östersund, Sundsvall and Härnösand in 2005. This process of diversification has not been entirely unproblematic. Full universities are understandably reluctant to accept new universities; the fewer universities there are, the more exclusive and the more prestigious it is to belong to this group. It may be noted that this logic seems to take the upper hand almost instantaneously. New universities do not necessarily lend a helping hand to, or, put in a good word for, university colleges pleading for full university privileges. The four, possibly five, established universities are less than happy about having to share scarce public funding with universities not yet quite on a par with the established institutions of higher learning. Referring to the importance of economies of scale, unabashed representatives of strong research units tend to dismiss funding of new universities as wasted. The logical consequence of this line of argumentation would be to reduce the number of universities drastically, perhaps to two or maybe just one, and provide the few remaining universities with all the money they need. This is by no means a real threat, but the tug of war between old and new institutions for limited resources is serious enough for some representatives of the latter to cast their arguments in terms of an implicit class struggle between haves and have-nots.

2 Teaching and Research 2.1

Institutions of Higher Education Teaching Political Science

In Sweden, political science is taught today at a number of institutions of higher education. In addition to the ordinary departments of political science at the large universities, undergraduate courses in political science are offered at mid-sized universities as well as university colleges. Undergraduate courses with a typical political science content may also be found at the various departments for peace and development research in Sweden, e.g., in Uppsala and Gothenburg (cf. the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education report 2006). These departments, however, will not be included in the present overview. Table 1 highlights the political science “milieus” in Sweden. The large departments of political science are found in the large university cities, Uppsala, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Lund and Umeå. The mid-sized political science units cover a somewhat broader spectrum, from the relatively large milieus in Örebro, Södertörn, Karlstad and Växjö to the rather small sections or units for example in Linköping, Luleå and Östersund. In this category, we

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

348

find recently established universities alongside university colleges. The really small units are characteristic of the university colleges, e.g., in Malmö, Jönköping and Kalmar (Table 1). Of course, by international standards, most of the sections and even some of the departments may be described as rather small. Table 1: Political science department and units in Sweden University Uppsala University Gothenburg University Stockholm University Lund University University of Umeå Örebro University

Department or unit Department of Government Department of Political Science Department of Political Science Department of Political Science Department of Political Science Department of Social and Political Sciences, Political Science Södertörn University College Political Science Karlstad University Department of Political Science, Section of Political Science Växjö University School of Social Sciences, Political Science Halmstad University College School of Social and Health Sciences, Political Science Linköping University LIU School of Management, Political Science Luleå University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social Science, Political Science Mid Sweden University (Sundsvall Department of Social Sciences, Political and Östersund) Science Malmö University College School of Technology and Society, Political Science Jönköping University College Jönköping International Business School, Political Science University College West (Trollhät- Department of Economics and Informatics, tan and Uddevalla) Political Science Kalmar University College Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Political Science Gävle University College Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Political Science Mälardalen University College Department of Social Sciences, Political Science

2.2

Size Large Large Large Large Large Middle-sized Middle-sized Middle-sized Middle-sized Middle-sized/small Middle-sized/small Middle-sized/small Middle-sized/small Small Small Small Small Small Small

The Structure of Academic Positions

The implicit “ranking” in Table 1 is based on the total number of lecturers in each department or unit, as of Spring 2005. The number of full professors at a large university department in the Swedish context typically amounts to 510. Similar comments apply to associate professors (in Swedish frequently listed under the heading Docent). Political science sections of mid-sized

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

349

universities are typically led by a single professor. The small political science units at university colleges usually do not have any professors at all. Undergraduate courses in political science are offered and taught by senior lecturers (in Swedish referred to as Lektorer). Table 2 displays the number of professors, associate professors, senior lecturers, and junior lecturers at Swedish political science departments, sections or units. All figures in the tables in this paper are from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education report on the state of education in political science in Sweden (2006). Table 2: Structure of academic positions in 2005 Professors

Uppsala Gothenburg Stockholm Lund Umeå Örebro Södertörn Karlstad Växjö Halmstad Linköping Luleå Mid Sweden University Malmö Jönköping University College West Kalmar Gävle Mälardalen Total

7 9 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 42

Associate professors and senior lecturers 38 24 32 22 13 12 12 7 8 10 11 3 3 5 5 1 3 1 210

Junior lectur- Total number ers (including of lecturers PhD students) 25 25 16 15 16 13 7 11 10 7 3 9 3 1 4 2 167

70 55 53 42 33 29 20 19 18 17 15 14 8 6 5 5 3 3 1 416

Equivalents to full-time lecturer 41.4 33.4 32.6 29.9 19.6 18.2 18.7 14.4 13.6 9.0 7.7 8.0 5.9 3.9 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.0 1.0 269.6

Table 3: Ratio of women/men in 2004 and 2005 (%)

Uppsala Gothenburg Stockholm Lund Umeå Örebro Södertörn Karlstad Växjö

Students 2004 PhD students 2004 women/men (regiswomen/men (n) tered number) 58/42 (1,990) 52/48 (27) 55/45 (614) 45/55 (31) 58/42 (1,511) 50/50 (30) 57/43 (1,208) 57/43 (28) 45/55 (402) 67/33 (15) 53/47 (900) 44/56 (23) 63/37 (475) 58/42 (435) 33/67 (6) 54/46 (780) 33/67 (9)

Lecturers 2005 women/men (n) 36/64 (70) 38/62 (55) 38/62 (53) 43/57 (42) 48/52 (33) 34/66 (29) 35/65 (20) 21/79 (19) 22/78 (18)

Professors 2005 women/men (n) 0/100 (7) 11/89 (9) 40/60 (5) 0/100 (5) 50/50 (4) 25/75 (4) 0/100 (1) 100/0 (1) -

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

350

Table 3: (cont’d)

Halmstad Linköping Luleå Mid Sweden University Malmö Jönköping University College West Kalmar Gävle Mälardalen

Students 2004 PhD students 2004 women/men (regiswomen/men (n) tered number) 56/44 (344) 50/50 (486) 33/66 (3) 53/47 (335) 43/57 (7) 53/47 (681) 0/100 (3) 60/40 (285) 60/40 (383) 58/42 (55) 33/67 (79) 54/46 (72) No data

100/0 (3) -

Lecturers 2005 women/men (n)

Professors 2005 women/men (n)

18/82 (17) 33/67 (15) 43/57 (14) 12/88 (8)

0/100 (1) 0/100 (2) 50/50 (2)

17/83 (6) 60/40 (5) 80/20 (5)

0/100 (1) -

0/100 (3) 0/100 (3) 0/100 (1)

-

In Table 3, the ratio between women and men is reported, focusing on undergraduate students, PhD students, lecturers and professors. As may be gauged from the table, gender equality is far from perfect. As for students and PhD candidates, the figures are pretty decent. In fact, in only 2 cases out of 19 do we find more males than females in the undergraduate category (figures from 2004). As for lecturers and professors, Table 3 reports a less than ideal situation, where men are almost consistently over-represented (figures from 2005).

2.3

PhD Students and Academic Output

Of course, the size or relative strength of a university department may be assessed in a number of different ways (cf. Hix 2004). The ranking in Tables 1 and 2 could be modified, by looking at, for example, the number of doctoral students (Table 4) or the number of undergraduate students (Table 5). As for graduate students enrolled in PhD programmes, we find the largest number at the four largest political science departments in Sweden: Gothenburg, Stockholm, Lund and Uppsala. The rank order then changes somewhat. Örebro is ahead of Umeå, in terms of number of PhD students, and Södertörn suddenly ranks pretty low on the list in Table 4. This actually is not quite true. Not entitled to run a PhD programme in its own right, Södertörn has made a formal arrangement with Stockholm University, making it possible for the some 60 doctoral students in BEEGS, the Baltic and East European Graduate School launched by Södertörn University College in 2000, to be stationed at Södertörn but defend their doctoral dissertations at Stockholm. The graduate school is financed by a grant from the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies (Östersjöstiftelsen). The political science PhD students in the graduate school are formally attached to the Department of

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

351

Political Science in Stockholm, but are very much a part of the research community at Södertörn. Thus, the ranking in Table 4 does not necessarily reflect the actual size of different research environments. Still, the overall picture is clear. A large university department in Sweden would typically count 20 to 30 PhD students. Table 4: Number of doctoral students in 2005 Gothenburg Stockholm Lund Uppsala Örebro Umeå Växjö Luleå Karlstad Linköping Mid Sweden University Jönköping Södertörn Halmstad Malmö University College West Kalmar Gävle Mälardalen Total

31 30 28 27 23 15 9 7 6 3 3 3 185

Looking at the number of undergraduate students examined each year, we get yet another ranking of the political science departments in Sweden. Table 5 puts Stockholm, Uppsala and Lund at the top with an educational output of some 550-650 students a year. These are followed by the political science sections at Södertörn University College, Växjö University, Mid Sweden University, and the two departments of political science at the universities of Umeå and Gothenburg (circa 200-240 students per year). The table also provides useful hints about the “normal” amount of political science students at mid-sized universities and the university colleges (circa 100-200 each year). Table 5: Number of undergraduate students examined in 2004 Stockholm Uppsala Lund Södertörn Växjö Mid Sweden University Umeå Gothenburg

Basic level (A-B) 461 393 347 169 152 185 146 158

Advanced level (C-D) 188 211 203 71 76 33 60 43

Total 649 604 550 240 228 218 206 201

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

352

Table 5: (cont’d) Örebro Linköping Halmstad Karlstad Malmö Luleå Kalmar Jönköping Gävle University College West Mälardalen Total

Basic level (A-B) 138 133 105 97 98 70 64 54 36 25 No data 2,831

Advanced level (C-D) 40 41 22 26 14 24 15 10 0 2 No data 1,079

Total 178 174 127 123 112 94 79 64 36 27 No data 3,910

In Table 6, the ranking of the Swedish political science departments and units is based on output, in terms of doctoral dissertations (figures from 2003/04). The table also reports the number of exams on the undergraduate level (equivalent to Swedish C- and D-level papers). Table 6 indicates that a large department of political science in Sweden produces some 4-8 doctoral dissertations per year. Table 6: Number of exams and doctoral defences in 2003/04 Stockholm Uppsala Gothenburg Örebro Lund Umeå Karlstad Luleå Växjö Linköping Mid Sweden University Jönköping Södertörn Halmstad Malmö University College West Gävle Kalmar Mälardalen Total

Undergraduate essays (C-D) 429 437 65 161 532 142 75 47 157 73 65 25 217 56 21 7 3 1 No data 2,513

Licentiate dissertations 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 8

Doctoral dissertations 17 14 11 8 7 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 66

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

2.4

353

Degree System and Admission Regulations

An academic degree with a political science major does not qualify for a profession in the same way as a degree in social work or, for that matter, a law or a medical degree. The vast majority of advanced (C-/D-level) political science students have some kind of administrative career in mind, mainly, but not exclusively, within the public sector. The political Master programme was originally designed to cater to this group of students and has become somewhat of permanent fixture in the recruitment strategy of political science departments. Admission is based on scholarly performance and/or potential as tapped by transcripts of baccalaureate diplomas, officially approved suitability tests, and – in some cases – also by work experience. Competition is sometimes very tough; sometimes virtually non-existent. In Uppsala, the political Master programme is on a par with some of the most attractive programmes, open only to students with top-notch qualifications all the way through. This stands in stark contrast to universities and university colleges, somehow incapable of attracting enough applications to fill the vacant places. Established universities do have many comparative advantages, but it would be unfair to the Uppsala department to dismiss its track record in this context as a by-product of a structural edge in the form of an independent capital base and a reservoir of respect and goodwill built up over a very long period of time. With the links to the labour market explicitly integrated into the programme, Uppsala has yet another competitive edge, far more likely to impress potential students shopping around the Internet for information. The discipline is dependent on several programmes, not just one. It is a crucial component in a distinctly professional programme for teachers in the public school system, in this particular case for civics teachers. Similar comments apply to area or regional studies, however defined, and a number of programmes inspired by current social and political agendas. But it is not just about programmes. Many students do not apply for admission into a programme in the first place; moreover, successful applicants do not always choose to remain onboard through the duration of the journey. In cases such as these, the obvious fallback option would be for the student to register or re-register as a student of separate courses and seminars, adding up to a total of 20 study weeks in one semester.1 Such a strategy has the advantage of maximising freedom of choice, but it also has some obvious drawbacks attached to it, such as frequent application deadlines, low priority as compared to programme students accompanied by justified feelings of uncertainty.

1

A study week officially counts.

354

2.5

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

Areas of Teaching and Research Profiles

Two kinds of courses accompany Swedish political science students from the undergraduate level to the doctoral programme: theory and method. The former cover just about everything from the history of political ideas to approaches, conceptual frameworks or paradigms, three, at least partially, overlapping terms. The introduction of separate method courses coincided with the breakthrough of behaviouralism in Sweden. The emphasis was on quantitative methods. The large-scale empirical research project on local government, launched in the 1960s as a national research effort mobilising the (then) five political science departments, created an internal demand for research assistance with a solid background in quantitative methods all over the country, and the market suddenly looked bleak for political scientists without at least basic knowledge of quantitative methods. Courses offered by Swedish political science departments are frequently listed in terms of recurrent topics such as Public Policy, International Politics/ Relations and Comparative Politics. First-year students are generally exposed to all three of them; second-year students (C-/D-level) have to look into at least two of them a little more thoroughly. The structure is roughly the same from one university or university college to another, but Public Policy, International Politics and Comparative Politics may be taught in many different ways. Inter-departmental variations with respect to the overall thrust and content of the courses offered are to be expected in a setting where different departments have different orientations. The four political science departments, the contours of which were visible already before World War II, carved out niches for themselves at an early stage: Lund within Constitutional Law and Public Administration, and Uppsala in Political Theory and Political Institutions. Stockholm and Gothenburg were latecomers in this context: the former was heavily influenced by Tingsten and has subsequently broadened the scope of its interests; under the skilful guidance of Jörgen Westerståhl, Gothenburg developed into the very centre of behaviouralism in Swedish political science and became a dominant actor in electoral studies and mass media research. Umeå, the most recent arrival in this context, developed expertise in local government and comparative politics. Lund and Stockholm have subsequently added international relations to their respective research profiles; Uppsala has cultivated rational choice theories and Stockholm has developed into somewhat of a centre for qualitative methods. All in all, however, the overall trend, affecting homogeneous as well heterogeneous departments, seems to be towards pluralism and diversity.

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

2.6

355

Professional Communication

Professional Organisation and Conferences The Swedish Political Science Association (SWEPSA), founded in 1970, is the professional organisation for political scientists in Sweden. In a recent interview, Olof Ruin, co-founder of this organisation, refers to a “hidden” motive behind this initiative: frustrated as they were with the old boys’ network, the young and upcoming political scientists saw SWEPSA as an alternative to the traditional, informal decision-making structures. Ruin, as noted above at the time one of the dissidents, does not say whether or not SWEPSA fulfilled these expectations, but it would admittedly be an interesting topic for a Master paper (Ruin 2003). SWEPSA has institutional members – political science departments and sections in universities and university colleges in Sweden, all in all some 17 institutional members – as well as individual dues-paying members, not affiliated with a political science department or section. Membership is basically open to everyone with an interest in political science and individual members currently include researchers, teachers, PhD students and practitioners of various kinds. A member is entitled to take part in the annual meeting of the Swedish Political Science Association and the related conference. The annual conference rotates among universities and university colleges and includes both general sessions and a range of smaller workshops where papers are presented and discussed. Typically, some 150-200 political scientists participate in the conference, although participation may fluctuate significantly from year to year (cf. Hinnfors 2003). Traditionally, there have been sections for International Politics, Public Administration, Comparative Politics and Political Theory, while in recent years additional groups have been formed to cover, for instance, Gender Politics, European Studies, Constitutional Politics and the Politics of Environment and Sustainable Development. According to the SWEPSA website (www.swepsa.org), the purpose of SWEPSA is fourfold: (1) to promote critical debate of the aims and means of political science and its function in society at large; (2) to inform about research in the field; (3) to stimulate co-operation between political scientists from different departments in Sweden; and (4) to represent Swedish political science in international co-operations, e.g., in the Nordic Political Science Association (NOPSA), the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) and the International Political Science Association (IPSA). The chairmanship of SWEPSA rotates biannually between the different university-based political science departments, while its steering board is comprised of approximately 17 representatives from all departments including those from university colleges, PhD students and practitioners. Currently (2005-2007), Katarina Eckerberg of the University of Umeå is Chairperson.

356

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

Swedish Political Science Journals SWEPSA has close collaboration with the only Swedish political science journal Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, managed by a foundation at Lund University and published in its current form, as a modern journal, from 1964 onwards. The journal contains research articles as well as debates relating to political science. Since 2005, SWEPSA has a special section for information and debate published in the journal. Prior to 2005, SWEPSA published a separate journal, SWEPSA Politologen. In addition to these two journals, Scandinavian Political Studies (SPS) stands out as the journal “closest” to the Swedish political science community, but Swedish political scientists contribute regularly to international journals like European Journal of Political Research (EJPR) and Journal of European Public Policy.

Publishing Houses There are a handful of publishers and publishing houses in Sweden specialising in political science. Doctoral dissertations are typically published by the university departments themselves. In addition, there are few research institutes catering to political science, e.g., the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. The commercial publishers include Studentlitteratur, SNS Förlag, Liber, Nya Doxa and Gleerups.

The Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science Upon the initiative of Leif Lewin, current holder of the Johan Skytte chair at Uppsala, the Skytte Foundation has established an annual prize, the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science, of 400,000 SEK (approximately 50,000 US$) to the scholar who in the eyes of the Foundation has made the most valuable contribution to the discipline. The prize was awarded for the first time in 1995: Robert A Dahl was the winner. Since then, a number of very prominent scholars have been awarded the Skytte prize: Juan J. Linz (1996); Arend Lijphart (1997); Alexander George (1998); Elinor Ostrom (1999); Fritz W. Scharpf (2000); Brian Barry (2001); Sidney Verba (2002); Hanna Pitkin (2003); Jean Blondel (2004); and Robert Keohane (2005). In 2006, the Skytte Foundation awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science to Robert Putnam, for his acclaimed theory of the social capital. The prize ceremony is a solemn affair, and the prize-winner is usually expected to make some sort of public appearance, e.g., to give a lecture or a seminar, which naturally receives relatively lot of attention; and to some extent, this interest spills over to the Department of Government, Uppsala University and political science as a discipline.

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

357

3 The Future of Political Science in Sweden We will conclude our report on the state of political science in Sweden with some brief notes on the developments of the field, with a special focus on the professional and disciplinary relevance of political science in Swedish society, e.g., the chances of researchers and students of political science on the job market. Not unlike the situation in other Nordic countries, the Swedish political science community is above all a national community (cf. Quermonne 1996). This does not mean that Swedish political scientists only write for a Swedish audience, i.e., in Swedish. On the contrary, most Swedish researchers are distinctly oriented towards the international research community; writing articles in international journals and anthologies, and participating in international conferences organised for example by NOPSA, APSA, IPSA or ECPR. The large and mid-sized university departments in political science are, as a rule, institutional members of the ECPR. Furthermore, it is very common for Swedish PhD students to write their theses in English or to participate in international summer schools in Essex, UK or Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA for instance. All the same, it is a national community in the sense that most Swedish political scientists consider the Swedish universities and university colleges their primary – if not only – job market; the main arena for inter-university mobility. While this mobility within the country has increased in recent years, relatively few Swedish political scientists obtain permanent academic positions outside of Sweden. Outside observers may be under the impression that the Nordic countries constitute a common labour market for researchers, since the language barriers between, e.g., Denmark, Norway and Sweden are easy to overcome. While the latter is true, only very few researchers from outside of Sweden obtain permanent academic positions in Sweden, and, again, only very few Swedish political scientists leave Sweden more than temporarily, as guest lecturers or visiting professors or on post-doc scholarships. It is an open question what will happen in the years to come, as a new generation of political scientists emerges. Looking at the development over time, Swedish political scientists today are significantly more oriented towards the outside world than they were, say, 20 years ago, in terms of publications and research networks. At the same time, it is likely that exchanges with the international political science community will continue to be limited, when it comes to permanent academic positions. As for students of political science, their chances on the labour market are hard to assess. For some years, the Swedish government has actively used the universities as labour market instruments. To spell it out clearly, an

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

358

enlarged student body equals less open unemployment. Therefore, it is not very likely that all graduating students of political science will find jobs that actually fit their education. The universities themselves are able to take care of just a fraction of the graduating students, as PhD candidates, but that road has become increasingly narrow, because of the financial situation at many universities. The current trend is for the universities to accept fewer students to the PhD programmes (cf. the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education report 2006). Other career opportunities for political science students include jobs as civil servants, public administrators, teachers and possibly journalists. The public sector is perhaps the most important part of the job market for students of political science, e.g., in regional and local government. Still, not a few students will have to find jobs in other sectors that do not really fit their education (cf. Hjort 2003). In this respect, the situation in Sweden is probably not different from that in other European countries (cf. Quermonne 1996). At the same time, political science remains a popular subject, and the basic-level courses at the universities continue to attract a large number of students. Finally, the Bologna Process should be mentioned, as a challenge for the future. “Bologna” has entailed a “Europeanisation” of sorts and has had a significant impact on the structure of higher education in political science in Sweden. However, it is still too early to assess the full impact of the Bologna Process. Compared to other Scandinavian countries, like Denmark, Sweden has been slow to adopt the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) measurement of courses and to restructure the academic programmes according to the 3+2+3 structure. Only in the autumn of 2007 will the new master programmes in political science see the light of day at many Swedish universities. As for the new PhD programmes, most Swedish political science departments are still trying to cope with the “Bologna challenge”, which for all practical purposes will reduce the average time of finishing a PhD thesis by some two years (Hermansson 2001; Hjort 2002, 2003; Larue 2004). * By words of conclusions, what can be said about Swedish political science in the future? As for activities within the discipline, recent trends have been favourable. The Swedish Political Science Association has been reorganised, strengthening the ties between different political science milieus in Sweden, be they university departments or small units at university colleges. Also, the Swedish journal of political science has been re-vitalised. Furthermore, we have noted that Swedish political scientists – PhD students and young doctors not the least – have become increasingly more oriented towards the international political science community. It does not take clairvoyance to predict that Swedish political science in the next few years will successfully master the noble art of muddling through. Hopefully, what we

The Current State of Political Science in Sweden

359

also will see, is a stronger Swedish presence in the general European political science discourse.

References Anckar, Dag (1987): “Political Science in the Nordic Countries”, International Political Science Review 8 (1): 73-84. Anckar, Dag (1991): “Nordic Political Science: Trends, Roles, Approaches”, European Journal of Political Research 20: 3-4. Easton, David (1953): The Political System: An Inquiry Into the State of Political Science, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Easton, David (1965): A Framework for Political Analysis, New York: Prentice-Hall. Easton, David (1967): A System Analysis of Political Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Elvander, Nils (1977): “The Growth of the Profession 1960-1975. Sweden”, Scandinavian Political Studies, Yearbook 12, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget: 75-82. Fredriksson, Bert (1980): Högskolans basenheter, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Umeå. Hermansson, Jörgen (2001): “Forskarutbildningen och statsvetenskapens framtid”, Politologen, Autumn: 23-32. Hinnfors, Jonas (2003): „Värna Förbundet!“, Politologen, Autumn: 23-25. Hix, Simon (2004): “Global Ranking of Political Science Departments”, Political Studies Review 2: 293-313. Hjort, Jenny (2002): “Från livsverk till gesällprov med oförändrade villkor?” Politologen, Autumn: 67-69. Hjort, Jenny (2003): “Om livet efter detta. Hur trygga osäkerheten efter disputationen?” Politologen, Spring: 61-63. Jönsson, Christer (1993): “International Politics: Scandinavian Identity Amidst American Hegemony?” Scandinavian Political Studies 16(2): 149-165. Kjellén, Rudolf (1921): Die Großmächte und die Weltkriege, Leipzig: Verlag von Drud B. G. Deubner. Larue, Thomas (2004): “Vår framtida forskarutbildning. Att orka föra en dialog”, Politologen, Spring: 65-69. Nygren, Bertil (1996): “Political Science in Sweden”, in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): Political Science in Europe: Education, Co-operation, Prospects. Report on the State of the Discipline in Europe, Paris: Thematic Network Political Science. Quermonne, Jean-Louis (ed.) (1996): Political Science in Europe: Education, Cooperation, Prospects. Report on the State of the Discipline in Europe, Paris: Thematic Network Political Science. Ruin, Olof (2003): „Den svenska statsvetenskapen – ett personligt perspektiv“, Politologen, Spring: 5-16. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2006): Evaluation report on the state of education in political science, peace and conflict research, development studies, and area studies at Swedish universities. (Högskoleverket, Rapport 2006: 17 R. Utvärdering av utbildning i statsvetenskap, freds- och utvecklingsstudier, och

360

Sten Berglund / Joakim Ekman

områdesstudier vid svenska universitet och högskolor, Stockholm, Högskoleverket.) Tingsten, Herbert (1937/1975): Political Behavior: Studies in Election Statistics, New York: Ayer Co Pub. Tingsten, Herbert (1960): Demokratins problem, Stockholm: Aldus. Tingsten, Herbert (1965): The Problem of Democracy, New York: Totowa. Tingsten, Herbert (1967): Från idéer till idyll: den lyckliga demokratien, Stockholm: PAN/Norstedt. Tingsten, Herbert (1973): The Swedish Social Democrats: Their Ideological Development, Totowa, N. J.: Bedminister Press. Wittrock, Björn (1992): “Discourse and Discipline: Political Science as Project and Profession”, in Meinolf Dierkes / Bernd Biervert (eds.): European Social Science in Transition: Assessment and Outlook, Frankfurt a. M./Boulder, CO: Campus Verlag / Westview Press: 268-308.

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

1 Introduction This article surveys the current state of teaching and research in political science. As with any investigation of a scientific discipline, the first challenge is to define its boundaries. Where does political science begin, and where does it end? In other words, which scholars, institutions and pieces of work are a part of it? These questions are perennial and even irresolvable to the extent that they reflect the fluctuating boundaries among scientific disciplines, which itself is a product of researchers’ receptiveness to influences from other fields in their search for theories, methods, concepts, and objects of study. Since our objective is to provide a survey of the current state of the discipline rather than to trace its history, we use an institutional definition that encompasses teaching and research activities with clear affiliations to political science. In Switzerland as in the rest of continental Europe, political science was institutionalized in two major phases (Gottraux et al. 2000, 2004). The first phase began towards the end of the 19th century, as the social sciences were gaining recognition in academic circles. The key development at this moment was the incorporation of insights from public law (constitutional and administrative), history, economics and philosophy into a synthetic approach to the analysis of governance. In the Francophone regions of Switzerland, this model took hold at the universities in Lausanne and Geneva. In the Germanspeaking regions, however, the traditional Staatswissenschaften model prevailed, and teaching and research in this field remained embedded in faculties of law. After World War II, the discipline came to a new juncture. In 1959, the Swiss Political Science Association (SPSA) was founded, which facilitated the discipline’s progressive installation in Swiss institutions of higher education, starting in the Francophone cantons and in Bern. This new trend was reinforced in the 1970s and 1980s, when political scientists at Germanspeaking universities in St. Gall and Zurich established their own departments.

362

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

According to studies from the early 1990s (Rüegg 1992; Linder 1996; Klöti 1991), there are about 25 university chairs in political science in Switzerland, and these run the gamut of theoretical orientations. They include six at the University of Geneva and three at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies, four at the University of Lausanne and three at Lausanne’s Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration, one at the University of Neuchâtel, two at the University of Bern, two at St. Gall, two at the University of Zurich, and finally two at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Moreover, there are about 120 researchers and lecturers working on political science projects at Swiss institutions. From 1980 to 1991, the number of students in political science doubled from 1,000 to 2,000, most of whom are studying at the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne. In 1995, Swiss universities awarded about 300 licences and 20 PhDs. Over the past decade, the discipline has experienced several important developments. Five Swiss universities (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zurich and St. Gall) now offer a major in political science. The only exceptions are the universities in Fribourg, Basel, Neuchâtel (which recently eliminated its sole chair in political science), and the new, very small University of Italianate Switzerland in Lugano. Overall, the number of students has increased significantly, with nearly 3000 students either majoring or minoring in political science in Swiss universities. With almost 700 students, the University of Zurich has caught up with the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne. Meanwhile, the political science department at the University of Bern currently has about 350 students, while St. Gall’s department has about 100. These numbers show that the discipline has been experiencing strong growth in Switzerland, and that this trend has affected the German-speaking cantons, especially Zurich, as well as Switzerland’s Francophone institutions. This growth is also visible in recent graduation statistics. In 2004, for example, Swiss universities and specialized postgraduate institutions awarded 23 Bachelor degrees, 411 licences, 118 postgraduate degrees and 44 Doctorates in political science (Office fédéral de la statistique 2005a). The teaching faculty, including full and associate professors as well as the intermediate corps (assistant professors and junior and senior lecturers and researchers) has also experienced considerable growth at all universities. The same is true for the number of people employed partly or entirely by major research projects, which are generally financed primarily by the Swiss National Science Foundation and secondarily by EU sources.

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

363

2 Political Science Teaching in Switzerland In accordance with the implementation of the Bologna Declaration, all Swiss universities are in the process of adapting their curricula across the disciplines. This process also involves significant changes in programmes of study offered by political science departments. Up to now, students studied for four or five years towards a licence, at which point they could continue studying for another one and a half to two years for a DEA (diploma of advanced studies). At this point, a small minority went on to pursue a doctorate. Although the PhD can theoretically be awarded after five years, most doctoral students require significantly more time. The new political science curriculum starts with the Bachelor (three years including 180 ECTS credits, which includes a major and a minor at some institutions), which is followed by the Master (one and a half to two years, including 90-120 ECTS credits), and finally by the PhD, whose length is not strictly regulated and which can be completed with support from new doctoral programmes1 established at the end of the 1990s with help from the Swiss Association of Political Science. Overall, the Bologna reforms have been implemented through a fairly rapid and flexible process of concertation among the various stakeholders involved in setting higher education policy in Switzerland. Switzerland’s federal structure allows the cantons a large degree of autonomy in the organization of their institutions of higher education, while the cantons grant the institutions under their jurisdiction great latitude to set their own priorities2. Swiss universities have therefore been the primary actors to implement the Bologna reforms, which they have done according to their individual

1

2

In 1999, two doctoral programmes (one in political science and one in international relations) were established for a period of two years. In 2006, two new doctoral programmes will open, one as part of a project designed to increase collaboration among faculty from the universities of Geneva, Lausanne, Fribourg, Neuchâtel and Bern, and the other as part of an interdisciplinary NCCR Priority Research Programme in political science and communications to be headquartered at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Zurich. In Switzerland, authority over educational policy is shared among the various levels of the cooperative federal system, according to which federal and cantonal authorities collaborate to set policy according to a division of labour that varies from one policy area to another. In the domain of educational policy, engineering and other professional programmes offered by polytechnics in Zurich and Lausanne and by specialized schools are run by federal authorities. The federal budget also finances universities, even though these remain under the control of the cantons. Each university is regulated by its own canton’s laws, which gives them considerable autonomy in making decisions that affect their internal organization and research priorities.

364

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

situations based on simple directives issued by federal authorities in charge of coordinating higher education policies set at the cantonal level (Auer 2005; Office fédéral de la statistique 2005b). The transition to the new system is therefore well underway in political science departments across Switzerland, and has only required modest coordination efforts among political scientists from various cantons. The Swiss Association of Political Science has facilitated this process through the provision of new mechanisms for the exchange of information, while leaving curricular design up to individual institutions that continue to set their own priorities.

2.1

The Universities

We distinguish below between universities that offer a full programme of study (BA and MA) in political science from institutions that only offer specialized, postgraduate, and continuing education programmes.

The Department of Political Science at the University of Geneva At the University of Geneva, the Department of Political Science is housed in the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, where it is part of a division that also includes departments of sociology, geography, and economic history. This department was established in 1969, ten years after Professor Jean Meynaud was appointed as the university’s first chair in political science, followed by Professor Dusan Sidjanski. The department has diversified considerably over the years, both in terms of its research interests and in its course offerings. Since the reform of 1969 six programmes were offered, and a new reform in 1984 further reinforced the department by adding five more courses to its roster. This enabled the department to offer a complete programme of study in political science (licence, DEA or diploma, and PhD) In October 2005, the Bologna reforms were implemented with the introduction of the new curriculum; however, its design remains very similar to that of the previous system. The Bachelor in Political Science offers a general foundation in the discipline and the Master programme consolidates this foundation while allowing students to specialize in a particular sub-field. The size and composition of the teaching staff of the Department of Political Science has experienced a similar upswing as its educational offerings. The teaching staff currently includes 35 people, which includes eight tenured professors as well as assistant professors and junior and senior lecturers and instructors. As far as the Bachelor in Political Science is concerned, the first year involves a broad introduction to the social sciences through required courses

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

365

that frequently draw on related fields such as constitutional law, political economy, history and sociology. Coursework during the following two years consists of seminars and other more specialized classes that focus more narrowly on political science. These classes cover Administration and Public Policy, Swiss and Comparative Politics, Political Behaviour, International Relations, Political Theory, and Methodology and Epistemology. It should also be noted that since 2005, the Department of Political Science has offered a Bachelor in International Relations, which ensures admission to the Master programme at the Graduate Institute of International Studies (GIIS). This new Bachelor in a key sub-field of the discipline has replaced the licence in international relations that used to be jointly offered by the university’s Political Science Department and the Graduate Institute, whose faculty taught the first and last two years of the curriculum, respectively. The Master in Political Science will be introduced in 2006, one year after the Bachelor. Until then, the Political Science Department will continue to offer the DEA, which the Master will resemble both in form and intent. Like the DEA, the Master is designed to equip students with a full toolbox of research skills while allowing them to specialize in a particular area. The capstone of the Master is the submission and defense of a thesis in one of the following areas: Administration and Public Policy, Political Behaviour, Swiss and Comparative Politics, International Relations and Political Theory. This emphasis on research is based on a comprehensive pedagogical strategy that provides an essential foundation for students who intend to pursue a PhD in Political Science. The Political Science Department at the University of Geneva is one of the major nodes of Swiss political science. This is due more to its dynamic growth since the 1970s, with the multiplication of its programmes of study and the sub-fields its courses encompass, than with its senior standing among departments in Switzerland. Its status is further reinforced by the growth of its teaching faculty, which has had the welcome side effect of augmenting its research capacity. Its faculty focuses primarily on Swiss politics and political behaviour, especially those who contribute to election and referendum analyses conducted by SELECTS and VOX. The department can also claim research strengths in the sub-fields of international relations, comparative politics, public policy analysis, public administration and political theory.

The Institute of Political and International Studies at the University of Lausanne Teaching and research in political science at the University of Lausanne are primarily carried out at the Institute of Political and International Studies (IPIS). This Institute was established in 1995 after several attempts to rede-

366

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

fine the institutional boundaries of the discipline within the university. Today, the institute is housed within the Faculty of Social and Political Science, which also includes the departments of sociology, anthropology, social and economic history, psychology and social psychology, and physical education. The programme of study in political science has also undergone several important transformations. In 1997, the three-year programme was converted into a four-year licence curriculum, including a thesis. Licence holders were entitled to pursue the maîtrise, at which point they were eligible to enter a DEA programme. Since 2005, the Faculty of Social and Political Science has adopted the Bologna system by introducing a renovated curriculum based on a three-year Bachelor programme (180 ECTS). Starting in 2007, a one and a half year Master of Arts programme (90 ECTS) will also be available. The Bachelor in Political Science is primarily generalist in nature, while allowing students to begin exploring a specialization. It seeks to introduce students to the main sub-fields of the discipline and to prepare students for the Master’s programme. Towards this end, it is organized around a major that ensures that students receive a foundation in these sub-fields, supplemented by a minor that includes coursework in complementary disciplines in the Social Sciences (Sociology, Gender Studies, Social Psychology, Anthropology) and History. Although the Master in political science is also generalist in nature, it allows students to develop expertise in a particular sub-field through completion of a thesis in one of the following areas, which is recognized through a special mention on the degree: Public Policy (mention “Governance and Policy-Making”), Political Sociology (mention “Sociology of Political Mobilizations”), and International Studies (mention “Globalization: political, social and environmental dimensions”). In addition to serving as a gateway to doctoral and other postgraduate programmes, the Master is also viewed as the culmination of the political science curriculum. These changes in the structure of the curriculum are part of the department’s significant increase in educational opportunities. The IPIS has enlarged its curriculum to encompass all of the major sub-fields, from Policy Analysis and Political Sociology (Political Behaviour and Institutions) to International Relations, Comparative Politics, Political Theory and Methods. In all of these domains, Swiss politics and policies receive special attention. The staff of the IPIS has grown along with its curriculum. Altogether, the IPIS houses about fifty individuals involved in teaching and research, including ten chairs, four directors of teaching and research (maîtres d’enseignement et de recherche), two assistant professors, and about thirty lecturers and researchers. This growth in the range of programmes over the past few years, which has only been reinforced by the implementation of the Bologna Agreements, has elevated the relative importance of the IPIS in the landscape of Swiss

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

367

political science, on a par with the traditional major players in Geneva and Zurich. In addition to the fact that its faculty cover all major sub-fields in their teaching and research, the Institute can also boast special expertise in the analysis of public policy and comparative political systems, as well as political sociology (social mobilization, political institutions, political life), which are housed at the Centre for Research on Political Action (CRAPUL). Several professors also focus on policymaking in research and higher education, which they typically conduct under the auspices of the “Research, Politics and Society” Observatory established for this purpose. Finally, the IPIS also includes a professor and several instructors who specialize in the politics of development, which represents a new direction for the department.

The Institute of Political Science at the University of Bern The current Institute of Political Science at the University of Bern was created in 1993 to replace the Centre for the Study of the History and Sociology of Swiss Politics. This centre was founded in 1965 as part of the Law and Economics Faculty by Professor Erich Gruner, at the time the only political scientist working at the University of Bern. Professor Gruner was succeeded in 1986 by Professor Wolf Linder, a specialist in Swiss politics. This transformation of the Centre into an Institute and its relocation to the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences was intended to promote the discipline at the University of Bern. Until the mid-1980s, political science had only been taught as a supplement to the economics curriculum. The first step towards its promotion as a discipline in its own right was the introduction of a minor in political science. Since 1994, when a second professor was appointed to teach comparative politics, students have also had the option of majoring in political science. Today, the Institute employs two full and two assistant professors and fifteen junior and senior lecturers, as well as several instructors. It also employs the staff that produces the Année politique suisse, an annual review of developments in Swiss politics that also produces documentary and bibliographic projects. The Institute also plans to hire a professor of political sociology in 2006. The Bologna reforms implemented during the 2005/06 academic year led to a thorough renovation of the Institute’s programmes of study. The social science curriculum now includes a Bachelor in Political Science, which requires 120 credits in political science and other introductory coursework in the social sciences, economics, law and methods, and 60 additional credits that students can use for a minor in a related discipline. Students may also opt to minor in political science, which requires coursework in the major areas of the discipline, including Swiss and comparative politics, international relations, public policy, political sociology, political theory, and the

368

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

institutional politics of the European Union. This academic year, about 350 BA or licence students are majoring in political science, and 480 have chosen a political science minor. After graduation, these students can continue their studies in the new Master programme in political science, which requires an additional 120 credits. The course of study for the Master resembles that of the Bachelor programme. The major (90 credits) builds on the foundation established during the Bachelor with advanced coursework in the same domains, and culminates with a Master’s thesis. For example, students focus on federalism and the welfare state in their coursework in comparative politics and on democratic theory in their political theory classes, while public policy classes are structured around policy evaluation exercises, etc. Students take coursework for their minor in other disciplines. One notable feature of the Master is its requirement that students earn 30 credits from a university where the language of instruction is not German. In addition to teaching, the Institute of Political Science at the University of Bern emphasizes research on voting analysis and Swiss politics and parties, especially at the local level. Other research priorities include European politics, policy analysis, and comparative economic and social policy.

The Institute of Political Science at the University of Zurich The first chair in political science at the University of Zurich was established in 1971 within the Faculty of the Arts, which includes all departments in the humanities and the social sciences. This chair in foreign policy and international relations was joined in 1980 by a second chair devoted to Swiss and comparative politics. It wasn’t until 1996 that the research unit that had housed these and other political scientists was converted into a full-fledged teaching and research institute, the Institute of Political Science (IPS). This institutionalization of political science in Zurich made it possible to offer a full programme of study. In 2003 and 2005, the Institute added two chairs, for a total of four full professors who cover international relations, comparative politics, Swiss politics and research methods. Furthermore, the IPS houses two research units. One works on political behaviour analysis and serves as the headquarters of the SELECTS programme. The other unit specializes in the analysis and evaluation of public policies. The institute currently includes two professors in addition to the four chairs mentioned above, as well as 33 assistant professors and lecturers and two research unit directors and their staff, for a grand total of about sixty employees. It will continue to award the licence during the transition to the Bologna reforms, which it is scheduled to implement in 2006. Students at the Institute choose a major and two minors. Political science majors choose a

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

369

concentration in Swiss and comparative politics, international relations, or political theory, and minors pursue a similar curriculum on a smaller scale. Zurich is also home to the Centre for Comparative and International Studies (CIS), which is affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Although it was established in 1997, the CIS already employs 170 researchers and staff. Its primary focus is International Relations (European Politics, Politics of Development, International Conflict, and International Political Economy), with a special emphasis on security policy. The CIS offers two tracks of study: a Bachelor of Arts in Public Affairs designed specifically for Swiss army officers, and a series of specialized degrees (Master of Arts in Comparative and International Studies, PhD) and professional programmes (Master of Arts in Security Policy and Crisis Management). Moreover, the CIS and the IPS coordinate in order to be able to maximize the range of courses available to students at both institutions. Within ten years, Zurich has become the most important centre of teaching and research in Switzerland. This is largely due to the status of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in the field of international relations (especially in the areas of security policy and Swiss foreign policy), as well as the University’s reputation in the remaining areas of the discipline, especially in Swiss politics, including major contributions to research on federal referenda and elections. As will be discussed below, the University also headquarters a research programme that will set the agenda for the discipline in the coming years.

The Institute of Political Science at the University of Saint Gall In 1996, Professor Alois Riklin converted an existing research unit in political science at the University of St. Gall into the Institute for Political Science (IPS), which currently includes three chairs and three associate professors. All in all, the institute employs about 20 people at various levels and offers a full range of undergraduate and graduate programmes (Bachelor, Master and PhD) in addition to sustaining an active research programme. At the University of Saint Gall, the political science curriculum has already been converted to the Bologna system, with a Bachelor in International Affairs and a Master in International Affairs and Governance. The first year of the Bachelor programme draws on a common curriculum for all students in law, economics, and business. During the second and third years, political science majors specialize in two areas through coursework that reflects St. Gall’s faculty’s areas of expertise: Governance and Public Policy, International Economy, Constitutional Theory (Staatslehre), European Law, Comparative Politics, Political Theory, International Relations, and Finance. The Master programme is based on three semesters of study. The first semester’s coursework is designed to transmit a foundation in political theory

370

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

and research methods, while the second and third semesters focus on international relations and public policy analysis. Research at the IPS focuses primarily on International Relations (Swiss foreign policy, Swiss-EU relations, European integration), Swiss and Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Economy (including case studies of welfare state reform), and Political Theory (which was the first area of expertise in political science at St. Gall).

2.2

Additional Programmes of Study in Political Science

In addition to the universities that offer a full programme of study (BA, MA, PhD), political science is also taught at other tertiary institutions, most of which are specialized in postgraduate education (MA, MAS, PhD).

The Graduate Institute of International Studies (GIIS) Founded in 1927, the GIIS is a multi-disciplinary institution specialized in international relations structured around several key areas (Political Science, History of International Politics, and International Law and Economics). It owes its existence and its strong development in large part to the fact that Geneva has long been the seat of many important international organizations. The GIIS is also affiliated with the University of Geneva, which enables it to award the DEA and the PhD in international relations. Starting in October 2006, the DEA will be replaced by a “Master in International Studies” as well as a “Master in International Affairs”. The DEA in international relations is a two-year programme that culminates in a thesis completed under the supervision of one of the four disciplinary sections of the institute. The political science section is composed of twelve faculty members, including five full professors. The coursework focuses on international relations with a special emphasis on foreign policy, international organizations, conflict resolution, and international business.

The Graduate Institute of Development Studies (GIDS) The Graduate Institute of Development Studies (GIDS) was first established in 1961 as the Genevan Centre for the Training of African Elites (Centre genevois de formation de cadres africains). In 1962, the Centre was renamed the African Institute of Geneva (Institut Africain de Genève), and in 1977 it was incorporated into the University of Geneva through a special convention. Although its initial focus was exclusively on Africa, its teaching and research orientation soon broadened to include the entire developing world, including Asia and Latin America. Like the Graduate Institute of International Studies,

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

371

the GIDS benefits from its location in Geneva which allows it to play an important role in ongoing discussions in the international development policy community in addition to its teaching and research activities. Moreover, the GIDS’ charter explicitly mandates that the Institute encourage students from developing countries to enrol. The GIDS has offered a specialized Master programme for the past several years, which since 2004 has been known as the Master of Arts in Development Studies. This programme is based on a multi-disciplinary approach that also includes anthropology, sociology, and political economy as well as political science. The political science component draws primarily on the sub-fields of area studies, international relations, and foreign aid policy, with an emphasis on social, economic, environmental and educational development. Because the teaching faculty at the GIDS tend to have either interdisciplinary or highly specialized degrees, pinpointing the exact number of political scientists teaching at the GIDS is a difficult task. However, four of its professors have a doctorate in political science and about ten instructors have a formal background in political science. The GIDS also jointly offers two postgraduate programmes with other Francophone Swiss institutions. Together with the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne, the GIDS runs a programme in “Arab and Muslim Contemporary Societies”, which awards the DESS (diplôme d'études supérieures spécialisées), a specialized graduate degree. The GIDS also awards another DESS through its “Interdisciplinary Programme in Asian Studies”, which it offers in collaboration with the University of Geneva and the GIIS. The GIDS and the University of Geneva also offer a joint doctoral programme in development studies.

The Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA) When the Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA) first opened its doors in 1981, it was a foundation affiliated with the University of Lausanne. Since then, the GSPA has grown into a significant institution in its own right. Eleven full and associate professors currently run the teaching and research units, supported by an assistant professor and 15 lecturers and research assistants, for a total staff of about 40. Its faculty are active in independent basic research, but they are also frequently commissioned to issue expert opinions and conduct targeted research. It awards both the Master and the PhD in addition to several continuing education certificates, and its faculty also provide consulting services to public administrations. In general, the GSPA’s offerings are geared towards individuals who are already employed at higher levels of public administration, so they encompass areas such as public finance, marketing, institutional politics, local politics, public policy

372

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

evaluation, social policy, human resource management, public management, information systems, etc.

The European Institute of the University of Geneva (EIUG) Founded in 1963 by Denis de Rougemont, the European Institute at the University of Geneva (EIUG) is an interdisciplinary centre directly administered by the university’s rectorate. It offers an interdisciplinary postgraduate programme with specializations in the following domains of European studies: “Cultures and Societies”, “Economy, Politics and Societies” and “Institutions, Law and Societies”. The EIUG has offered a PhD programme since 2003, and will begin to offer the Master in 2007. The teaching faculty is drawn from the university’s professors in law, the humanities, economics and the social sciences. Four political scientists teach at the EIUG, with courses on the EU’s foreign policy and international relations, European security policy and European integration.

Europainstitute of the University of Basel Just like its Genevan counterpart, the Europainstitute at the University of Basel offers programmes of study on the process of European integration. Its Master of Advanced European Studies combines coursework in law, economics and political science, with an emphasis on the construction of EU institutions, European public policy and EU foreign policy. The permanent teaching faculty in political science is limited to one professor and one lecturer, although professors from other institutions are periodically invited to offer courses. For the time being, the Institute does not offer a doctoral programme. This survey of the major centres of teaching and research in political science in Switzerland has revealed that the past decade has been characterized by a fairly significant degree of professionalization, due to personnel increases across the board. More recently, as new programmes of study have been introduced, the curriculum has become more integrated and systematic. As a general rule, the first level of study (Bachelor) provides a general foundation, which is then followed by a specialization at the second level (Master). Postgraduate institutions therefore play an important role in shaping the discipline. Overall, the most important university institutes have remained generalist in their coverage of the major sub-fields of the discipline, as well in their emphasis on Swiss politics. In spite of relative stability in this respect, two areas of teaching and research are experiencing a new surge of interest: public policy analysis and international relations, and in particular the process of European integration.

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

373

3 Research in Political Science in Switzerland We have already mentioned some of the principal areas of research that have been produced within Swiss institutions dedicated to political science. This portrait of the state of political science research in Switzerland can be supplemented by a few observations on the areas this research covers and the types of financing these researchers receive. We limit our analysis to the major features of the discipline today. To do so, we consider the research groups established by the Swiss Political Science Association, the projects funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, and finally we look at research on Swiss politics.

3.1

The Swiss Political Science Association (SPSA)

Since its founding in 1959, the SPSA has contributed to the discipline’s development in Switzerland by ensuring a minimum level of coordination among universities, as well as with other national and international political science associations3. It also supports specialized publications, including the Revue suisse de science politique (Swiss Political Science Review) (which replaced the Annuaire suisse de science politique in 1995) and the Manuel de la politique suisse. Furthermore, the SPSA helps scholars to set up research networks with others in their area of specialization. The association’s annual congress features these networks’ research, thus providing periodic opportunities to survey the range of research interests among political scientists in Switzerland. The SPSA currently includes 12 working groups. Three of these focus on sub-fields of international relations (the intersection of international relations and comparative politics, European studies, security policy), while three others deal with more traditional areas (political behaviour, political theory, public policy) and five focus on specific issues and themes (gender and politics, federalism, social policy, political economy, and the politics of territory). The remaining group works on research methods in the discipline. As far as theoretical orientations are concerned, the majority of Swiss political scientists tend to draw inspiration from the English-language literature, especially from the schools of neo-institutionalism and rational action

3

In addition to coordinating with the International Political Science Association (IPSA) and the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), the SPSA maintains regular contacts (mostly through joint conferences) with German and Austrian political science associations as well as with Francophone associations in Quebec, Belgium and France.

374

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

theory (RAT). However, their work also reflects significant influence from Francophone political sociologists at the University of Lausanne. The following overview of publications in the Revue suisse de science politique (Swiss Political Science Review) also suggests that this journal publishes articles that directly or indirectly address Swiss politics. The next table also reveals that the general trend is towards public policy analysis and studies of political life (institutions, distribution of power and political behaviour). Table 1: Sub-fields covered by articles and special issues of the SPSR, 1995-2005 1. Political Theory and Political Philosophy 2. National and Comparative Politics Local Politics Public policy and Public Administration Political Institutions and Political Life Political Forces Political Behavior Foreign Policy European politics 3. International Relations and International Studies Area studies International Relations 4. Other (epistemology, methodology) Totals

3.2

Articles 6

Special Issues

14 58 47 14 21 14 15

2 1

1 2 10 202

1 8

4

Debates 1

9 6

2 1 19

Research Funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)

The SNSF is Switzerland’s primary tool for promoting scientific research (Benninghoff/Leresche 2003). Established in 1952, it supports projects conducted under university auspices and issues scholarships to young as well as established researchers. Because there is no national institution in Switzerland devoted exclusively to research (such as the CNRS in France), research funding in Switzerland generally takes the form of research contracts, and the SNSF is the most important source of funding in this context for the humanities and the social sciences. The SNSF allocates these research subsidies according to two categories. Subsidies in the first category (Division I) support independent basic research. The second category (Division IV) supports targeted research, which follows a research agenda set by political authorities. Targeted research consists of three sub-categories: the National Research Programme (NRP), established in 1976; the Swiss Priority Programme (SPP) that operated from 1991

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

375

to 2003; and the National Centres of Competence in Research (NCCR) established in 1999.

3.2.1 Independent Basic Research Over the past ten years, the SNSF has supported over 50 political science projects of various sizes. Most of these projects have involved analysis of various types of public policies (environmental, scientific, social, economic, immigration, etc.) on the one hand, and of political behaviour and institutions (referenda and elections, social movements, political parties, direct democracy institutions, etc.) on the other. Moreover, half of this research focuses on Switzerland, while the rest employs a comparative perspective (comparative political systems, comparative public policy). The remaining projects come from the domain of international relations (fewer than ten projects).

3.2.2 Targeted Research National Research Programmes (NRP) The NRP established in the mid-1970s are thematic in orientation, and most are multi-disciplinary. From 1995 to 2005, 46 political science projects were sponsored under the auspices of 14 different programmes (Table 2) covering a wide variety of issues (legal and social status of women, relations between Switzerland and South Africa, right-wing extremism, etc). Table 2: Distribution of projects across NRPs with a political science component NRP 27: Efficiency of Governmental Actions 31: Climatic Changes and Natural Hazards 35: Social and Legal Status of Women – Ways to Equality 39: Migration and Intercultural Relations 40: Violence in Daily Life and Organized Crime 40+: Right-wing Extremism – Causes and Counter-measures 41: Transport and Environment: Interactions Switzerland – Europe 42: Foundations and Prospects of Swiss Foreign Policy 42+: Relations between Switzerland and South Africa 43: Formation and Employment 45: Future Problems of the Welfare State 49: Antibiotic Resistance 52: Childhood, Youth and Intergenerational Relationships in a Changing Society 54: Sustainable Development of the Built Environment Total: 14 programmes

Projects in political science 3 1 2 2 2 3 5 18 2 3 1 1 1 2 46

In Table 3, projects involving public and foreign policy analysis predominate, mostly due to the large number of projects in the NRP 42, which fo-

376

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

cuses exclusively on Swiss foreign policy. Two of these deal with public policy analysis, while the remaining projects specifically address questions of foreign policy and international relations. Table 3: Sub-fields covered by research funded by the SNSF, 1995-2005 1. Political Theory and Political Philosophy 2. National and Comparative Politics Local Politics Public Policy and Public Administration Political Institutions and Political Life Political Forces Political Behaviour Foreign Policy European Politics 3. International Relations and International Studies Area Studies International Relations 4. Other Totals

NCCR (2)

SPP (1)

1 1 2 1 2

2 2 6

NRP (14)

21 2 2 18 1

2 3 12

Totals

3 23 10 3 2 17 1 2 3

10

2 46

64

Swiss Priority Programmes (SPP) Like the NRP, the SPP are also thematically organized. From 1995 to 2005, four projects were completed, one of which was a political science project. This project, the “SPP Switzerland: Towards the Future”, was directed by Hanspeter Kriesi, professor at the University of Geneva and subsequently at the University of Zurich. This project sought to reinforce the social sciences in Switzerland, in part through the cultivation of research networks. From 1996 to 2004, 57 research projects were completed within five thematic modules that were explicitly designed to promote interdisciplinary collaboration in the social sciences. Ten political science projects were completed within three modules: “Science and Technology” (1 project), “Information and Media Society” (1 project), and “Institutional Change” (8 projects). As Table 3 reveals, these projects were primarily concerned with local politics, policy analysis and political institutions. Most of the researchers involved in these projects were drawn from the four major institutional centres of Swiss political science in Bern, Geneva, Lausanne, and Zurich. Due to the large number of projects and researchers involved, the “SPP Switzerland: Towards the Future” represents one of the most important developments in Switzerland’s political science research community since 1995. National Centres of Competence in Research (NCCR) The NCCR has only begun to incorporate political science into its research agenda. Up until the spring of 2005, a few political scientists, mostly from

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

377

the Graduate Institute of Development Studies in Geneva, contributed to the “NCCR North-South: Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change”, but even there political scientists were only involved at the periphery. Since 1999, when the State Secretariat for Education and Research issued its first call for proposals, the NCCR only solicited projects from the sciences and engineering. This didn’t change until October 2003, when the NCCR included the social sciences in its call for proposals. In March 2005, six new NCCRs were created, including the “NCCR Democracy: Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century”, a multi-disciplinary research programme that includes ten political science projects. Directed by Professor Hanspeter Kriesi and headquartered at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Zurich, this programme seeks to assess the impact of globalization and European integration on state legitimacy, and it also analyzes how changes in the media are affecting the public arena. This NCCR is organized into five research modules that include a total of seventeen research projects, ten of which are directed by political scientists. As Table 3 demonstrates, NCCR political science projects cover most of the traditional sub-fields of the discipline, and as such they also involve the collaboration of the leading specialists in these areas. Moreover, they are headquartered at Switzerland’s top institutions in political science. Since its funding is secured through 2008, the latest research programme is ideally positioned to play a leading role in the discipline in the coming years.

3.3

The Swiss Political System: The Cornerstone of Research

An important strand of research analyzes political behaviour (referenda and elections) in light of the institutional specificities of the Swiss political system (federalism, direct democracy, etc). Since 1977, every referendum (over 100 at the national level in the past ten years) has been included in a major study sponsored by the Federal Chancellery (VOX). This study is carried out by a private polling institute (the GfS.Bern) and three political science institutes (at the Universities of Zurich, Bern and Geneva). These analyses focus mainly on opinion formation and political attitudes, the electorate’s familiarity with the issues on the ballot, and voters’ decision-making processes and the significance they attribute to referenda. Since 1995, federal elections have also been the target of a systematic study organized by the SELECTS (Swiss electoral studies) programme, which benefits from the collaboration of the main research institutions in political science in the country. These analyses focus on public opinion formation and the determinants of voting behaviour. Depending on the election,

378

Nicolas Freymond / Christophe Platel / Bernard Voutat

SELECTS researchers focus on the impact of cantonal variation, the election campaign or on the evolution of political behaviour. Since 1998, the canton of Ticino’s Office of Statistics has included the Observatory of Political Life (Osservatorio della vita politica/OVP). This research and documentation unit is composed of a small team of researchers whose primary mission is to study elections and more general aspects of political life in Ticino. The Observatory has published about twenty studies, including investigations of voting analysis, ballot systems, political participation and political parties. Finally, the Année politique suisse, published each year by a small team of researchers at the University of Bern, provides a concise overview of the main events in Swiss politics each year based on a systematic review of Swiss media. The team maintains a database and a documentation centre (which features indexed press clippings from about twenty Swiss publications) on Swiss politics. Periodically, it also generates studies on political parties, federal elections, and specific areas of public or institutional policy (agriculture, the EU, etc.).

4 Commentary and Outlook In recent years Swiss political science has experienced a relatively important period of growth. The number of students, teachers and researchers entering the field continues to increase. Curricular reforms in compliance with the Bologna Declaration continue to be implemented, while research efforts are intensifying and the number of publications continues to increase. The discipline continues to entrench itself within the landscape of Swiss higher education, with a foothold at five universities and as many specialized institutions. All in all, trends towards increasing professionalization and academic recognition have continued to grow over the past decade. A brief survey of articles published in the Revue suisse de science politique (Swiss Political Science Review) also suggests that political scientists in Switzerland are increasingly receptive to outside influences, including comparative approaches and borrowed theoretical paradigms, especially from the English-language literature. Nonetheless, these observations require a few qualifications. On the one hand, the relative importance of Swiss political science should be considered in light of the country’s relatively small size. On the other, the humanities and social sciences are still young fields in Switzerland, and political science remains a minor player even in this camp. Finally, the multiplication of subfields has certainly promoted specialization, but their unequal rates of development may lead to problems as some continue to lag behind. Bearing this in mind, three sub-fields have clearly assumed a predominant position in Swit-

The State of Political Science in Switzerland in Teaching and Research

379

zerland: international relations (with an emphasis on the EU and Swiss relations with the EU), comparative public policy analysis, and Swiss institutions and political behaviour. Finally, it should be kept in mind that research in Switzerland is primarily funded through public contracts, which tend to privilege targeted over independent basic research. In light of the fact that the Swiss National Science Foundation is in a position to shape the discipline through its power of the purse, it is reasonable to assume that academic freedom in political science remains relatively fragile in Switzerland. This will certainly represent a major challenge in the years ahead.

References Auer, Andreas (2005): “Avis de droit: la déclaration de Bologne et le fédéralisme universitaire en Suisse”, Université de Genève (document ronéoté). Benninghoff, Martin / Jean-Philippe Leresche (2003): La recherche: affaire d’Etat, Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Collection Le Savoir suisse. Gottraux, Philippe / Pierre-Antoine Schorderet / Bernard Voutat (2000): La science politique suisse à l’épreuve de son histoire, Lausanne: Réalités sociales. Gottraux, Philippe / Pierre-Antoine Schorderet / Bernard Voutat (2004): “La création de l’Association suisse de science politique: émergence d’une discipline scientifique”, Revue suisse de science politique (1): 1-28. Klöti, Ulrich (1991): “Political Science in Switzerland”, European Journal of Political Research (20): 413-424. Linder, Wolf (1996): „Schweizerische Politikwissenschaft: Entwicklungen der Disziplin und ihrer Literatur“, Revue suisse de science politique 2(4): 71-98. Office fédéral de la statistique (2005a): Examens finals des Hautes écoles universitaires 2004, Neuchâtel: Office fédéral de la statistique. Office fédéral de la statistique (2005b): Le baromètre de Bologne: l’introduction de filières d’études échelonnées dans les hautes écoles suisses, Neuchâtel: Office fédéral de la statistique. Rüegg, Erwin (1992): Untersuchung zur Situation der Sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung in der Schweiz: Bericht für die Politikwissenschaft, Bern: Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsrat.

British Political Science in the New Millennium Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

1 Introduction The onset of the 21st century finds British political science in rude health. The number of students following courses in politics remains at a high level; teaching quality has been assessed and found to be to of excellent quality; there continue to be large numbers of doctoral students, both full and part time, including significant numbers of overseas students, and in research terms British political science stands second only to that produced in the United States. Its professional body, the United Kingdom Political Studies Association, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2000, continues to recruit record numbers of political scientists and provides a wide range of services to them, be it in terms of the annual conference, journals produced and supplied as part of members’ services, support for specialist groups and doctoral students, as well as travel grants for individuals attending international conferences. British political science has faced and overcome challenges in terms of financial cutbacks in higher education in the 1980s, the introduction of research assessment later in the same decade, and teaching quality assessment at the turn of the millennium. Today it awaits the impact of the introduction in Britain of top up fees and its consequences for student recruitment to the discipline and a new round of research assessment in 2007, as well as challenges posed by developments within the European Higher Education Area.

1.1

Historical Background

Politics has been studied as a discipline from the late 19th century onwards. Politics in some form of other has been taught at Oxford since the late 19th century. Teaching and research were further widened with the creation of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in 1895. However, the first Professor of Political Science, Graham Wallas, was not appointed until 1914, though Sidney Webb (one of the School’s founders) was appointed Professor of Public Administration in 1912, and the influential con-

382

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

stitutional lawyer, A. V. Dicey, lectured from 1896. The spread of the discipline over the first half of the next century was relatively slow, with few universities establishing chairs in the discipline, and it was not until after World War II that politics was studied more widely at British universities. Until then, the dominant figure in the profession was Harold Laski, professor at LSE. The creation of Nuffield College at Oxford provided a further stimulus to the growth of the discipline, where the Warden, D N Chester, set about establishing a strong group of academics in the field, including David Butler, together with a growing number of graduate students. In 1949 the Universities of Manchester and Liverpool appointed W. J. M. (Bill) Mackenzie and Wilfrid Harrison to first chairs in politics, and these three were to dominate much of the discipline for the next twenty years, each establishing different dynasties of their own. But it would be true to say that none of the three produced a school of thought – each in his own way was extremely catholic, more interested in stimulating students and colleagues into opening up new areas of work and trying new ideas, though always insisting on a high degree of academic rigour in the work. Thus it was that the UK Political Studies Association was established in 1949, and the inaugural meeting was held in March 1950 which established both an annual meeting at which papers were discussed amongst the small numbers of practising political scientists and a quarterly journal, Political Studies, available to members as part of their subscription. Membership was only open to those academics teaching politics in universities. Today that qualification has been widened so that anyone interested in the study of politics may join. It is important to note the use of the word Studies in the Association’s title. Its founding fathers rejected the American idea of politics as a science, preferring to consider the study of politics more as an art than as a science. The distinction was important at the time and persisted into the late 1960s, contributing in part to the delay in introducing behavioural and quantitative approaches to the discipline in the UK, although British political science has always had a strong focus on political thought and institutions. As Jack Hayward (1996) noted, American behaviourism was strongly resisted in the middle of the last century, and even today most departments would be known as Departments of Politics or Government as distinct to Departments of Political Science. Herein lies something of the distinctiveness of a British approach to the study of political science, one that resists the wholesale importation of orthodoxies into the discipline, be it 1950s behaviouralism or 1990s rational choice. Yet, at the same time, there is not attempt to defend a nation-state standpoint. British political science is characterised by eclecticism and a willingness to adapt and change in order to improve. By the early 1960s, politics was being taught in most of the universities and university colleges then in existence. But the real expansion of teaching and research in politics was to come later in that decade, particularly with the

British Political Science in the New Millennium

383

creation of some dozen new universities in the mid-1960s, followed shortly after by the creation of the polytechnics – institutions supposedly teaching more applied disciplines, which included public administration. It was in this period that the first professors took up their posts in institutions such as Essex, Strathclyde, Sussex and Warwick, all institutions that have subsequently become well known as strong centres for the study of politics in the UK. Essex was particularly important in terms of the international development of British political science, since it acted (and still does) as the administrative centre for the newly created ECPR and also hosted an international Summer School. The result was that British universities came to join ECPR in large numbers, whilst many of their political science graduates also attended the Summer School, meeting others from many other European institutions, and as a result forming networks which provided an important subsequent basis for international cooperation in teaching and research.

1.2

Teaching

Today, politics is taught in over 90 higher education institutions in Britain. Mainly it is taught as a single subject, but it is mainly taught jointly with another subject, such as history, a language or another social science. Politics may also be taught as part of other specialised programmes such as European or American studies. Apart from a brief period in the 1980s (when funding cutbacks severely affected the social sciences), politics has always a popular choice amongst students. Estimates suggest that around 3,000 students follow single honours degree programmes and perhaps ten times that number following joint ones. Most BA programmes are of three years duration, though those which are more practitioner-orientated (e.g., public administration) may take four years, with one year taken up by a stage. Similarly programmes in European or American Studies, or those taken with a foreign language, are likely to include a year abroad at a foreign institution or at a stage. The result, as Hayward (1996) noted, is that most British students finish their first degree programme (normally three years) by the age of 2224 or earlier, an age generally much younger than their European counterparts, where many students follow four or five year BA or MA level courses, and where entry into higher education may be delayed by military service. Despite the ever-increasing student rolls, however, the number of teachers of political science is relatively small when it is considered as a percentage of all academics (3 %) in the UK, and the discipline remains a modest one in terms of size in most universities. More recently there has been a growth in numbers: Hayward (1996) reported a 1993 figure of some 1,338 academics practising political science. Today that figure has grown to just over 2,100. Three trends are noteworthy: first there has been a considerable

384

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

increase in the number of women into the profession over the last fifteen years. A PSA Survey in 2003 reported that over a quarter of the profession was female, although it was still overwhelmingly (96 %) white. Second, there has been a growth in the number of academics employed on temporary contracts, albeit over 85 per cent of UK political scientists are employed on permanent contracts. Third, since 1993 there has been an increase in the numbers employed on a part time basis, although currently this is less than 5 per cent. Over three quarters of UK political scientists are employed in “old” universities, with only just over a fifth working in the “new” universities or former polytechnics. Fewer staff in the “new” universities are full professors (22 %), as compared to around 30 per cent in the “old” universities. The age profile of the profession suggests that it will face a retirement/replacement problem over the next 10 to 15 years. Almost one in three had sought to change jobs in the year before the survey, with 80 per cent seeking to stay in higher education.

Teaching and Research Interests Table 1 below gives details of the research interests of UK political scientists drawn from surveys of the profession conducted between 1987 and 1993. In terms of research interests, where the categories overlap, there is a strong consistency in the proportions of political scientists researching in different sub-areas of the discipline. The area of marked increase is in International Relations, a reflection of both the increased demand amongst students to work in the area at undergraduate and postgraduate levels over recent years. The other main area of growth has been in European Union studies, a reflection of the changing importance of the European Union (EU) over this period. The table also suggests a reasonably strong overlap between individual’s teaching and research interests, if the 2003 figures are any guide. And of course it should be remembered that most academics teach and research in more than one area of the discipline, though the table does reveal that more people have to teach research methods than actually research in the field. In terms of postgraduate studies, political science has proved to be the most popular of social sciences in terms of both Master and doctoral levels. Taught Master programmes grew quickly from the 1970s onwards, most being of one year’s duration and generally of a specialised nature. Such specialisation may include inter alia such sub-areas of the discipline as Political Behaviour, Political Thought, Research Methods, International Relations, and Area Studies. Most will contain a strong methods element, especially given the increasing requirement for improved methodological competence as part of doctoral studies. For most of the last 10 years, the main studentship awarding body for doctoral studies, the Economic and Social Research Council, has been increasing the requirements for methodology as part of UK

British Political Science in the New Millennium

385

doctoral programmes that are recognised by the Council. Whilst such recognition does not preclude universities from offering doctoral programmes (universities being autonomous bodies able to determine what degree programmes they wish to offer), it is important for universities to have such recognition if they are to attract graduate applicants. Notwithstanding this proviso, however, it is important to remember that UK institutions have large numbers of (relatively high) fee paying international students following postgraduate programmes, and that many doctoral students pursue their studies on a part time basis, more out of love for the subject than from any other ambition. Again the ESRC imposes conditions on the doctoral programmes it recognises, among which is the expectation that the majority of its doctoral students will complete their studies within a four-year period. Failure to reach this target means that an institution may lose recognition of its programmes. Table 1: Teaching and research interests: UK political scientists, 1987-2003 Field

1987 research %

American Politics British Politics Comparative Politics Development Studies Environment Politics European Countries European Union Gender Studies International Relations Local Government Political Behaviour Political Theory Political Philosophy Public Administration/ Policy Political Economy Political Sociology Research Methods Other

Source:

1993 research %

28.0 38.0

24.0 36.0

4.0 17.0 12.0 11.0 23.0

5.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 22.0

23.0

22.0

11.0

10.0

2003 teaching % 11.1 31.2 35.0 11.1 6.6 27.4 25.2 8.5 35.8 10.5 12.5 24.7 14.5 21.5 14.7 12.3 25.2 21.6

2003 research % 7.1 24.9 25.4 8.9 5.9 22.1 24.7 7.1 30.0 11.6 11.8 21.3 13.4 20.7 15.6 11.6 8.3 19.5

1989/1993 figures as reported in Hayward (1996); 2003 figures supplied by the UK PSA. The latter figures are based on a survey of individuals: the former on a survey of departments.

Issues of Quality in Teaching and Research ESRC recognition of doctoral programmes and the awarding of studentships are but one area in which UK political science has been subject to increasing inspection and regulation. Whilst there is an attempt to maintain the fiction of ‘parity of esteem’ amongst all institutions and all degree programmes (regardless of discipline), so that theoretically a degree from Oxford is the same

386

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

as that from Poppleton University1, the introduction of national research assessment exercises in the 1980s and of similar teaching quality assessment exercises in the 1990s under the auspices of the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC) have re-enforced the trend noted by Hayward (1996) towards semi-official league tables, mainly produced by such national newspapers as The Times, Guardian and the Times Higher Education Supplement. It is difficult to estimate the impact that such exercises have had on political science in the UK. Much of the research undertaken in political science does not require substantial funding. Political theorists simply need time to reflect on the problems engaging them, or perhaps some funds to visit archives containing rare sources. Much work in comparative politics and public policy simply requires travel money to visit the country being studied. At the other end of the spectrum, much electoral research is necessarily relatively expensive. However, political scientists in the UK are facing increasing pressure from their universities to attract research funding for two reasons, full economic costing (FEC) and the research assessment exercise (RAE). Underlying the move towards FEC for research projects is a broader debate about how research should be funded in British universities. There is a broad consensus that the RAE to be held in 2008 is likely to be the last one. There are a variety of reasons for this: the transaction costs of the exercise both for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (and the counterpart bodies in Scotland and Wales); the increasing difficulty of finding adequate methods of differentiation at the top of the range, making discrimination in the provision of funding more difficult; and controversies about the methodologies used. It seems likely that the “R” element of public funding that universities receive, based on their RAE performance, will increasingly be displaced by bidding for competitive funds from the research councils, for most political scientists the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), although an increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary projects with natural scientists has meant that some political scientists are now being funded by natural science research councils, e.g., in the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. Ironically, one of the consequences of a shift to competitive bidding funding would be an increase in transaction costs for academics, both in terms of appraising the bids, but also in terms of a constant pressure to file new funding applications. Research councils already pay a substantial overhead on research grants awarded which goes to help fund the infrastructure costs of universities and this overhead is likely to be increased to 80 per cent under FEC. One consequence is that it is less attractive in financial terms to make research applica1

Poppleton is a fictitious institution whose activities feature in Laurie Taylor’s column in the Times Higher Education Supplement.

British Political Science in the New Millennium

387

tions to private charitable foundations. Foundations such as Leverhulme and Nuffield have been important sources of funds for political scientists and are often perceived as more approachable, less bureaucratic and less concerned about constructive deviations from the original research proposal than the research councils. Along with the British Academy, which receives public funds, the Nuffield Foundation has provided small research grants on which rapid decisions are taken. These have been very useful for running pilot projects which might lead to a larger study and have also been a valuable mechanism for young political scientists to obtain their first research grant. The ESRC has a budget of £119 million, nearly two thirds of which is spent on research and just under one third on training doctoral students. There has been some controversy about the way in which the ESRC has disbursed its research funds. In broad terms, grants are provided in three ways. First, there is the ‘response’ mode. Any academic can submit an application on a topic that is within the remit of the ESRC and if it is below £100,000, a decision will be taken relatively quickly. This is a particularly useful route for political scientists at an early stage in their career. Second, research grants are provided as a part of a “programme” that has a central organising theme, hopefully combining academic and policy relevance. There is a hope that the sum will be greater than its parts, that the researchers will benefit from interaction with each other on the intellectual and substantive problems they are tackling. Whether this works out in practice depends in part on the programme directors who have to strike a difficult balance between not interfering in the work of the researchers and yet bringing together the often disparate projects in a coherent whole. Despite these challenges, there have been a number of successful programmes in the area of political science in recent years. Examples include the One Europe or Several? Programme which was a five year research programme allocated £4m and completed in 2003; the Future Governance Programme, completed in 2004, which consisted of thirty projects which examined the scope for drawing public policy lessons from cross-national experience; and the Devolution and Constitutional Change programme set up in 2000 and concerned with new political institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. The third way in which funding is provided takes the form of research grants to ESRC research “centres” such as the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at Warwick University. These centres normally seek to bring together a number of disciplines, e.g., the Warwick centre was essentially based around a joint venture between economics and politics and international studies but also brought in other disciplines such as law, sociology and business studies. The centres are funded for an initial five years, renewable for five years and there is now the possibility of some funding beyond the 10 year period. The centres are encouraged to bid for additional

388

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

funds from other research foundations, but the ESRC funds a core of research staff. This represents a substantial commitment of resources for the ESRC and some political scientists consider that more value added is obtained from response mode and programme work. Funding from the European Union through framework programmes has been a significant source of funding for some political scientists. This funding source is more relevant for political scientists undertaking work that has public policy implications that have been the subject of EU attention, e.g., environmental policy. The transaction costs, both in terms of assembling a cross-national network and completing complicated forms, are perceived to be high and the bureaucracy involved deters many potential applicants. Some political scientists have founded the COST (the French acronym for European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research) committees a useful mechanism for building networks within Europe that can then be used as a basis for a framework programme bid or for a more modest form of research funding. In research terms, UK political scientists are under a constant pressure to publish the expected quota of publications (or better) in the period between each research exercise − or perish as researchers. The pressure is perhaps greatest on new recruits into the profession, who will be expected to have completed their doctorate and to have published one or two articles before appointment, if not to have a book published or almost in press. Each subsequent assessment exercise ramps up the expectations of the quality of publications and level and degree of research activity by departments and individuals. An excellent performance in the RAE is expected, not only of the best-rated institutions, but also in many others, especially as HEFC funding for research is tied to the rating for the discipline.2 The RAE is conducted on the basis of peer group review. Membership of the relevant panels is announced well in advance, together with the criteria on which judgements will be made. The professional association will have had consultative input into both the criteria and the panel membership. To date there have been four such exercises since 1986, and the next exercise, due in 2008, is expected to be the last and thus currently assumes great importance. The RAE has been a controversial feature of university life in the United Kingdom that has had a profound effect on political science and other disciplines. The first RAE was held in 1992, although it was preceded by more 2

Essentially a rationing exercise, given limited funds, the RAE works best for those disciplines where research is expensive to fund – such as the natural sciences. For the much cheaper humanities and social sciences, it is doubtful whether the benefits outweigh the costs (and individual efforts) involved.

British Political Science in the New Millennium

389

limited and less systematic attempts to assess research quality. It was followed by further exercises in 1996 and 2001 with the next one scheduled for 2008. The official view is that the RAE is a peer review based assessment of quality that allows the higher education funding bodies to distribute public funds for research selectively. Institutions conducting the best research receive a large proportion of the available grant so that the infrastructure for the top level of research in universities is protected and developed. This is said to facilitate the international competitiveness of British research, particularly with the United States and to ensure that public funds are well used. One of the criticisms of the RAE made from the humanities and social sciences has been that it has been driven by an inappropriate natural sciences model of research. Much research in the natural sciences requires the use of expensive equipment which needs to be concentrated in a relatively small number of locations characterised by excellence. Much research in the social sciences has been more individualistic and does not require expensive equipment, although arguably there are benefits from collaborating with a body of scholars with similar interests in one location, even if the internet has reduced some of the transaction costs associated with collaboration with researchers located elsewhere. There have also been criticisms of some of the inconsistencies and anomalies associated with the methodologies used in the RAE. The case for the RAE is often presented in financial and international competitiveness terms, but there is an academic case as well. In the past many political science departments in the UK were characterised by something that came close to anti-research culture, in which old Oxbridge values regarded “scribbling” with disfavour unless it seemed to demonstrate ‘effortless superiority’. The pursuit of scholarship was often associated with a rather elitist culture in which circulation of ideas among a restricted group of experts was favoured over wider dissemination. New career entrants today encounter a more positive research environment in which they are given a variety of forms of help, support and training to develop their research. There are also opportunities for much more rapid promotion compared with the stagnation that the discipline encountered in the difficult years of the 1990s. Full professorial salaries are no longer held back by a professorial ‘average’ and, although less common than in the natural sciences, economics or business studies, salaries around the six figure mark in UK pounds are not unknown. The RAE has inevitably produced a sharper and more clearly defined hierarchy of universities and departments, although that would probably have occurred in any case, particularly after the upgrading of the polytechnics into universities in 1992 and the subsequent creation of additional new universities. Political Science did well in the last exercise in 2001, though the financial outcome was not as good as many would have hoped. Table 2 gives

390

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

details of the scores, with 5* indicating that the quality of research is of both international and national quality, and 3a indicating that the work is of national status. Departments were graded from 1 to 5* in the 2001 RAE, but no funding was provided from 3A and below, while research funds for Grade 4 departments were cut back by over forty per cent. One consequence of these funding decisions was to put severe pressure on smaller political science departments in traditional universities. The Political Studies Association (PSA) campaigned vigorously in conjunction with other social science associations to halt projected further cuts in funding for Grade 4 departments and met the then higher education minister. A number of departments in former polytechnics did well in the 2001 RAE with De Montfort University, based in Leicester, receiving a Grade 5, while Coventry University, the University of the West of England at Bristol and Westminster University received Grade 4s. The results represented a substantial improvement over the previous exercise for the discipline, an improvement also achieved by many others, reflecting not just an improvement in quality but also a greater understanding in many institutions of how best to play the research assessment game. 69 Politics and International Studies submission were made to the 2001 RAE, but only five institutions received the coveted Grade 5* award. The University of Essex has a strongly established reputation in areas such as electoral studies. King’s College London has a distinctive reputation in the area of War Studies. The University of Oxford had the second largest entry (70.5 staff) and is known for the breadth as well as the depth of its coverage of the discipline. The University of Sheffield provides an example of a way in which a department can be built up through good management with a particular reputation in the area of political economy. The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, is noted for its strength in international studies. Two universities which have a deserved reputation for their contribution to the discipline received Grade 5 scores: the London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of Manchester. Organised in separate departments of government and international relations, LSE entered the largest number of staff of any unit of assessment (76). Like Oxford, it is known for the breadth and depth of its contribution and houses a number of well-known leading figures in the discipline. Manchester was one of the pioneer departments of British political science and also contains a number of leading figures, complemented since 2001 by the recruitment of excellent younger staff. In Scotland, no departments received a 5*, but three received a 5 (Glasgow, St. Andrews, Strathclyde). Queen’s University Belfast also received a 5 grade. As a result, HEFCE found it could not fund institutions at the kind of level that had followed the previous exercise, with the result that those scoring a 3a lost all research funding, whilst those scoring a 5 were reduced to the funding level previously available to a 4 rated department. Such a fund-

British Political Science in the New Millennium

391

ing result not only failed to reward improvements in research effort, but seriously undermined the credibility of the exercise and HEFCE itself. The government subsequently found some extra monies to fund research, but wanted it distributed to the better-rated departments. One result was that those departments which had previously been rated 5* and had maintained their score in the 2001 exercise were now rated 6* − so that they could receive additional monies. In the 2003 PSA Survey of the profession, fewer than one in five respondents thought the implementation of funding was satisfactory. There was subsequent review of the research assessment exercise, (the Roberts Review), which resulted in a considerably changed set of rules and panels for the next exercise in 2008. The UK PSA was consulted about the form of the new exercise and was broadly supportive of the new proposals. Table 2: HEFCE research ratings, Politics, 2001 5* Essex King’s Coll (War Studies) Oxford Sheffield Aberystwyth

Note:

5 Aston+ Bath+ Birkbeck Bradford (Peace Studies) Bristol Cardiff+ De Montfort Exeter Lancaster+ LSE Loughboro+ Manchester Portsmouth+ Reading Salford+ Surrey+ Univ Coll+ Warwick York Glasgow Strathclyde Queens/Belfast

4 Brunel Cambridge Coventry Durham East Anglia Goldsmiths+ Kent+ Lancaster Leeds Liverpool Nottingham Queen Mary Southampton Sussex West of England Westminster Aberdeen Dundee Edinburgh Herriot Watt+ Paisley+

3a Central England Huddersfield Kent King’s Coll (Defence Studs) Leeds Met London Met Manchester Met Northumbria+ Nottinghm Trent Open Oxford Brookes Plymouth Staffordshire South Bank+ Sunderland Univ Coll Wolverhampton Robert Gordon Stirling Swansea Ulster

3b Derby Middlesex

+ = European Studies with substantial politics staff.

The 2008 RAE introduces a new feature in the form of a ‘main panel’ grouping a number of disciplines which is intended to ensure greater consistency across disciplines and overcome not entirely unjustified suspicions that some disciplines conspired to boost their grades. However, the main work will be done by the Politics and International relations sub-panel, chaired by Professor Tony Payne from Sheffield, a widely respected figure. The two professional associations, the PSA and the British International Studies Association (BISA) were closely consulted in the selection of the sub-panel member

392

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

whose interests cover various aspects of the discipline. A quality profile will be constructed from each department with scores ranging from classified to 4, representing work that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. In constructing the quality profile, a 75 per cent weighting will be given to research outputs, normally four pieces of work submitted for each individual nominated which will be read by the sub-panel. A 20 per cent weighting will be given to research environment, e.g., research income and doctoral students, and 5 per cent to esteem which in broad terms is a reflection of involvement in the wider profession. The decisions made will have a profound impact on the future funding and standing of political science departments. The other issue which political science faced at the turn of the Millennium was the introduction of teaching quality assessments, which applied to all disciplines taught in all higher education institutions. The exercises were carried out by the UK Quality Assurance Agency. These began in 1993, and the first exercises left something to be desired, with the first review of history provoking considerable outcry. As a result the UK PSA expressed its views about the need for changes: one result was that the assessment of the discipline was delayed until 2000-2001, by which time the whole system of quality assurance was under review. The UK PSA was also active in helping departments prepare for the review through meetings with heads of departments, and he fact that the subject came late in the day meant that most institutions had experienced numerous reviews in other subjects, so were well able to prepare for the review. As a result, Politics and International Relations generally emerged well from the teaching quality assessment, with at least a third of the departments being rated excellent for teaching, achieving a total score of 22-24 across the six elements that were assessed. Though departments such as Oxford, Essex, Manchester and Sheffield all achieved a score of 24/24, they were also joined by less well known institutions such as De Montfort and Greenwich universities. The process involved a two to three day visit from a review team made up of an independent professional review chair and up to four peer reviewers drawn from a range of institutions. Despite the fact that review teams spent considerable time in the classroom attending lectures, seminars and tutorials, as well as reading students’ written work, considerable emphasis was placed on meetings with staff where they were expected to demonstrate how they achieved excellence in teaching, be it in curriculum matters, students support and guidance, student progression and achievements, etc. Whilst the exercise overall no doubt helped establish that the teaching of political science at British universities is of a high quality, it also proved a costly and time consuming one for most departments. In particular it required departments to prove huge, if not excessive, amounts of documentation. Again the 2003 PSA Survey reports that fewer than a quarter of respondents felt that such assessments “provide a welcome opportunity to

British Political Science in the New Millennium

393

reflect on teaching and administration”. Nevertheless, results in the exercise, together with those in the research assessment reviews, play an important part in the production of institutional league tables produced by national newspapers, with many institutions using the results of both exercises in their recruitment publicity. Two further matters have been of some concern recently, essentially linked to each other. The first is the question of a core curriculum for political science, whilst the second concerns benchmarking for the discipline. The question of the core curriculum emerged as part of the debate around the Bologna Process and the nature of a three-year BA. Together with other national associations and the European Political Science Network (epsNet), the PSA had submitted a document on a core curriculum for political science to the Berlin meeting on the Bologna Process in 2003. In this context it is interesting to note that 65 per cent of respondents to the 2003 Survey did not think there was a need for such a core curriculum, perhaps more a reflection of the UK traditions of academic autonomy than any belief that there were not some subjects that should always be part of a political science BA degree. Subject benchmarking arose out of discussions between the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), higher education institutions and other interested parties in the middle to late 1990s. An initial study, based on three subject areas, concluded that benchmarking was possible, though not without its difficulties (QAA 1998). Benchmarking came about as one of a range of exercises undertaken in the 1980s by the QAA in order to demonstrate the quality assurance of British higher education. QAA invited subject groups to undertake benchmarking exercises, and a political science and international relations group produced its recommendations in 2000 (QAA 2000; Buckler 2002).

1.3

Staff and Student Recruitment

Hayward (1996) noted the autonomous nature of British universities, notwithstanding their dependence on central government and its agencies for much of their funding, both for teaching and research. Recruitment of staff is undertaken by each institution separately, through advertisement and interview. It is not unusual for there to be more than 50 applications for a post, though those at senior level attract fewer applications. At senior level, (i.e., to full professorships), the interviewing panel, which is normally chaired by the head of the university, will normally include two external assessors (senior professors from other institutions), protecting against the possibility of a selfrecruiting and self-perpetuating oligarchy emerging. Nevertheless, with the ever-increasing importance of the RAE, a “market” for well-qualified profes-

394

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

sors has (unofficially) come into existence, with the better rated institutions often seeking to maintain or improve their positions by either recruiting professors from other institutions or dissuading their staff from leaving, often by offering them a professorship. One result has been some improvement in pay levels at the senior level, though generally pay in higher education has declined over the years in comparison to other similar occupations in the UK. Again the 2003 PSA Survey reports some dissatisfaction with pay and conditions, with almost two thirds having considered leaving the profession at some point. Low pay, stress, long hours and administrative overload are the reasons most often cited, and there can be little doubt that the impact of research assessment and the increase in student numbers participating in higher education have helped make an academic career less attractive to the best qualified graduates than perhaps was the case 30 or 40 years ago. As Hayward (1996) noted, student admissions are undertaken by each institution on an extremely competitive basis. Under a national scheme, undergraduate students apply for degree programmes of their choice at a limited number of institutions. Selection is on the basis of their end of school examinations and some interviewing and institutional visit by university departments. Additionally some students can be recruited through what is known as the clearing process, whereby students who fail to gain entry to their most preferred course can apply to other programmes at other institutions in the weeks before the first semester begins. Politics departments will have been given a target by their university for the number of students they are expected to recruit and have to make sufficient offers to places to ensure they hit or exceed their target – quite a risky business. Postgraduate students are recruited directly by each university, again generally on the basis of the undergraduate degree grades. A marked feature of many UK higher education institutions is the number of EU or other foreign students on their courses at all levels. Thus, for example, more than half of LSE’s students come from non-EU countries. Generally speaking, Britain has been one of the more successful countries in recruiting overseas students, with a long history of such activity. After the United States and Australia, it has been particularly active in overseas recruitment, particularly in the Far East.

Professional Communication: The Role of the PSA and BISA As noted earlier, there are two professional associations in the discipline in Britain, the PSA and BISA, the latter organisation being founded by Susan Strange in the mid-1970s. The two associations work closely together, particularly on important policy issues. Each association has a representative on the other’s executive committee and there were close informal contacts between the office holders during discussions about the 2008 RAE. Both associations publish journals and a newsletter: a family of four journals in the

British Political Science in the New Millennium

395

case of PSA, the Review of International Studies from BISA. Additionally many British political scientists act as editors for, or as members of editorial boards, of a large number of international and national journals. Each association has an extensive network of specialist groups dealing with particular aspects of the subject. These specialist groups are in many ways the lifeblood of the associations, organising their own workshops and organising panels at annual conferences. A particularly active group with the PSA is the Election, Parties and Public Opinion Group (EPOP). It organises an annual conference that brings together practitioners and academics working in the field of election studies and has now launched its own journal, the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. Both associations have an annual conference, although the format and organisation of this event is the subject of continual discussion and review. The two associations cooperate in the organisation of a Heads of Departments conference which enables discussion of contemporary higher education policy issues as they relate to politics and international studies. Membership of the PSA has increased substantially in recent years. At the end of 1998, PSA had 876 members; by the end of 2004, PSA had 1,554 members and this number has continued to increase. BISA has around 1000 members. Some individuals are members of both organisations and benefit from a discount on a second membership. Nevertheless, there are a considerable number of individuals working in politics and international studies departments who are not members of either organisation, either because their principal disciplinary identity is elsewhere (e.g., history, philosophy, geography) or because they prepare to concentrate on more specialised organisations. Because of the income it receives from its journals, which accounts for just over 60 per cent of its total income, PSA is better funded than BISA, although BISA finances are improving. The PSA operates from an office at the University of Newcastle and has two full-time staff plus part-timers and consultants. The PSA has been seeking to enhance the discipline’s profile among practitioners of politics and the media with some success. An important part of this effort is the annual Awards Ceremony which is held in London and honours politicians, media analysts and academics. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, was honoured as Politician of the Year at the 2004 Awards Ceremony and used the occasion to make a major speech on Britishness. Because of the many challenges that academics have faced in British higher education, both associations have had to develop considerable effort to developing their capacity to contribute to the development of higher education policy, often working in conjunction with other associations in the social science. Apart from the RAE, the development of the systematic assessment of quality standards in teaching and the development of benchmark

396

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

standards for each discipline has required close attention, as has the Bologna Process at European level. The PSA has given considerable emphasis to the development of a dialogue with the ESRC and contacts are also maintained with the Politics Section of the British Academy. In addition, it has been prepared to meet with officials of HEFCE, the QAA and from government departments when the need has arisen. The PSA has invested considerable resources in developing relations with the American Political Science Association (APSA). APSA officers regularly visit the annual conference of the PSA and a meeting to review progress in developing relations between the two associations is held at the APSA annual meeting. PSA nominates a panel at the APSA annual meeting and provides funds for its members to attend. PSA is a member of the International Political Science Association (IPSA), but relations have not always been easy and in 2005 PSA was not a member of the Executive Committee despite being the second largest political science membership association in the world. PSA has welcomed the development of a standing conference of European political science associations with the next step being to put this arrangement on a more formal and systematic basis. All these developments represent a growing trend towards internationalisation of the discipline, with many British political scientists being individual members of APSA and attending and presenting papers at its annual meeting, as well as participating in the activities of its British Politics Group. Additionally, British political science departments constitute the largest group in the European Consortium for Political Research, whilst several departments and individuals are active in the European Political Science Network (epsNet)

2 The Future of Political Science in the UK The demand for politics and international studies courses in the UK is buoyant at undergraduate and postgraduate level with a particular interest displayed in courses with international relations and Global South emphases. There seems to have been something of a 9/11 effect in boosting undergraduate applications. Politics showed one of the biggest subject increases in the 2002 undergraduate entry with applications up by 14.4 per cent. Undergraduate course applications have continued to rise, up 13 per cent year on year for single honours politics courses starting in this current session (2005/06), while MA applications have also shown a marked increase with particular interest in areas such as international political economy, the European Union and other regional studies programmes. Higher Education Statistics Agency figures for 2002-3 showed that politics and international studies graduates did slightly less well in the job market

British Political Science in the New Millennium

397

than graduates across the board. 30 per cent were employed in a graduate job, compared with an average of 39 per cent across all subjects. 34 per cent were employed in a non-graduate job, as against 29 per cent for all subjects. 8 per cent were unemployed, slightly more than the 7 per cent figure recorded for all subjects. Graduates from the discipline develop a range of employment related skills and are known for their flexibility. Hence, they enter a wide range of careers. They are generally more successful in media careers than graduates in English and media studies and this represents a key career destination with many prominent figures in broadcasting and the print media having a first degree that included the study of politics and international relations. Government and public administration, including the National Health Service and local government, remains a popular career destination. With the expansion of the security services in response to the terrorist threat, this is becoming increasingly important as a career destination for some students. Some students enter private sector jobs, but teaching is not a common career destination, except perhaps for students who have taken a joint degree in history and politics and then teach both subjects. Politics is not, however, a national curriculum subject. Graduates who become politicians are the exception rather than the rule. Even highly rated departments are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit staff of the required quality from within the United Kingdom. This is not a problem that is confined to political science and is more acute in disciplines such as economics. Many PhD students do not go on to apply for academic jobs some, for example, preferring the higher salaries and more rapid promotion available in educational administration. As a result, staffs are increasingly recruited from outside the UK, leading to more cosmopolitan departments. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are traditional recruiting grounds, but if anything the numbers of staff drawn from there has increased. There is also a long standing tradition of Americans taking up positions in UK universities, although they require work permits. A new trend has been the recruitment of staff elsewhere in Europe, with a surplus of candidates with PhDs acting as a push factor and relatively high salaries and the reputation of UK universities acting as a pull factor. Germany, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries have been relatively strong recruiting grounds, reflecting the strength of political science in those countries, but staff has also been recruited from France, Italy and Greece. Political science in the UK has always been something of a “junction” subject, having close links with other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, and this has been both a source of strength and a weakness. Together with the absence of a ruling orthodoxy about theory and methodology, it opens up the subject to a variety of approaches and perspectives, but also means that it is sometimes too eclectic and lacking a clear identity. This is reinforced by a tendency towards greater specialisation in defined niche

398

Michael Goldsmith / Wyn Grant

subjects. Establishing a reputation in one of these is often seen as the most effective route to career success. This can mean a neglect of “grand narratives” on democracy, conflict, and power whose analysis and understanding is essential addressing the “who gains” and “who loses” questions that are at the heart of the study of politics.

3 Conclusion Despite the difficulties which the profession has faced over the last 10 to 15 years, British political science remains second only to the US in terms of its number of academics, and the quality of its teaching and research is constantly of a high standard. Some of its departments are world renowned, able to attract the best under-and postgraduates, as well as internationally recognised academics. Despite their sometimes eclectic nature (which could be seen as one of their strengths) British political scientists are active internationally, be it at the European level in EU funded research programmes, or in organisations such as ECPR and epsNET and their specialist groups. They take part in American meetings organised by APSA and other groups in the United States, whilst their own association together with BISA flourishes and provides support that permits members to take part in the activities of a large number of specialist groups. Equally well they attract significant research funding from national research councils, demonstrating their ability to respond to calls for research applications in what are often highly specialised fields. Despite the challenges it faces, both as a profession and as individuals, British political science in the new millennium is one of, if not the strongest in Europe – and long may it continue to be so.

References Buckler, Steve (2002): “The Politics of Benchmarking Politics”, in: David Jary (ed.): Benchmarking and Quality Management: The Debate in UK Higher Education, C-SAP, University of Birmingham: 51-61. Hayward, Jack H. (1996): “Political Science in the UK”, in: Jean-Louis Quermonne (ed.): The State of the Discipline, Paris: FNSP: 413-427. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) (1998): Evaluation of the Benchmarking Process in Law, Chemistry and History: A Report, Gloucester, UK. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) (2000): Subject Benchmark Statements: Politics and International Relations, Gloucester, UK.

Part II European Developments

The European Conference of National Political Science Associations: Problems and Possibilities of Co-operation Paul Furlong1

1 Introduction In this brief presentation, I want to describe first what the European Conference of National Political Science Associations (ECPNSA) has already done, and then to consider what job it might do in the future. As person in charge of the external relations for the British Political Studies Association from 2002-2005, in 2003 I found myself parachuted into a role I had been unaware of. The ECNPSA had been in existence for two years. There was an acting secretary already, known to many of you, Klaus Armingeon of the University of Berne. There was an agreement that ECNPSA should meet at the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) joint workshop sessions each year, and that the acting chair and host should be nominated by the host country. Since the ECPR in 2003 was held in Edinburgh, Scotland, as an English academic living in Wales I was the obvious person for the job. We then held a further meeting at the European Political Science Network (epsNet) conference in Paris in June 2003, and submitted a paper to the Berlin Bologna Summit in September of that year. Our paper comprised a covering letter and an agreed statement of the basic curriculum requirements for a Bachelor of Art (BA) in political science in Europe. This paper was the result of intensive discussion among those present at the various meetings, and was finally drafted after the Paris meeting jointly by Michael Goldsmith and Klaus Armingeon, after which it was circulated to all the representatives we had contact with for their approval. The original draft which was discussed had been developed within epsNet, and the ECPNSA draft differed significantly from it. The ECNPSA discussions comprised representation from national political science associations across Europe, and many of those who participated are here. I’m happy to acknowledge the contribution which was 1

Speech delivered at epsNet/POLIS Plenary Conference, 17-18 June 2005, Sciences Po-Paris.

Paul Furlong

402

made to the document by the people who attended our meetings, and rather than mention them all by name I will merely say that the final document, the agreed basic curriculum, had been discussed at meetings attended by colleagues representing 16 countries from across the whole of Europe, and we had of course contacted many more who hadn’t been able to attend but who had in some cases sent us written comments. Only one country explicitly refused to be involved, and that was Sweden, though I believe their position may have moderated somewhat. Let me say from the outset that notwithstanding the vigorous disagreement about the content of the curriculum, and other matters, the experience for me and I think for others was a very positive one. The core curriculum was a compromise, but it was fruitful one. It was an important first step, an important document in its own right, more perhaps for national political science associations than for its impact on the Berlin summit. I certainly drew from it the conclusion that we needed to continue our dialogue in that forum, or something like it, and the rest of what I have to say is premised on that evaluation. In what follows I try to delineate what the objectives of the ECPNSA could be, what the issues were which our initial meetings revealed, and how it might work in conjunction with ECPR, epsNet and the National Associations.

1.1

Why Do We Want to Do This?

The motivation comes from the common felt need to provide an authoritative response from the political science community to the major changes in Higher Education structures and processes across Europe associated with but not delimited by the Bologna Process. We had and have two main audiences: the inter-ministerial group meeting every two years under the auspices of the Bologna framework, and our own national higher education policymakers. As well as these, our audience comprised our political science colleagues in our own countries, the senior management in our own Universities, and to a lesser extent our colleagues in cognate disciplines. The aims are therefore both reactive and positive: reactive, in the sense that we have to respond and to some extent defend ourselves against potential and real threats resulting from the radical changes in Higher Education now sweeping across Europe, nationally and at the European level, and positive, in the sense that in this process of reform we have the opportunity to promote political science as a discipline, indeed I would say as one of the three core social science disciplines with economics and sociology. Notwithstanding, the major differences among us, which I will come to shortly, both of these aims can be met much more effectively if we hang together. The reasons for this are obvious: it is not only that our national and inter-ministerial colleagues will listen much more readily to an agreed position voicing our concerns at the biennial Bolo-

The European Conference of National Political Science Associations

403

gna summits, but also that there is a continuous need for involvement. As a simple example, the quality assurance reforms called for in the Berlin Bologna Summit in September 2003 are now being guided through by an ad hoc organisation with the title “The European Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQAA)”. Somebody has to talk to these people on behalf of European political science. If we go to the ENQAA as 15, 25, 38, or however many individual voices, we weaken our position. Other disciplines have European wide representation. As a mature core discipline it is surely time for us to do likewise.

2 Issues 2.1

Relationships with epsNet and ECPR

About ECPR and epsNet, my colleagues Dirk Berg-Schlosser and HansDieter Klingemann can speak with much more authority than I. Nevertheless, we need to be sensitive to these relationships from the outset. The ECPNSA should not seek to supplant in any sense the work of epsNet or of ECPR. What it provides is a different voice, a voice which is engaged directly in policy-making, in authoritative representation of our discipline through the National Associations, and in promoting political science collectively across Europe. ECPNSA should not be concerned directly with research. Its first role therefore is to provide in so far as possible a united voice for political science in Europe, to enable us, in conjunction with ECPR and epsNet, to come to an agreed view about what is best for our discipline as a collaborative enterprise, and to promote that vigorously.

2.2

Role of National Organisations

This follows directly from the relationship with epsNet and ECPR. The pressures on us, though mediated by the various connivances and devices of the Bologna Process and the European Commission, are still structured predominantly by our national experience, to which national associations have to be able to respond. Indeed, they will not participate in a European-wide representation unless it responds to their direct concerns; it must also add to their capacity to respond, and it must be a learning organisation. Its second role therefore must be to provide a forum within which we can exchange solutions and learn about good practice, and even about failed experiments. Just as it must be almost redundant to say that an ECNPSA should not compete

Paul Furlong

404

with epsNet and with ECPR, so it must be axiomatic that it is a confederation of national organisations based on equality of representation.

2.3

Impact of National Differences

The respect for different national experiences means that it will not be possible or appropriate to seek standardisation; it should not mean however that we forego the opportunity to co-ordinate as appropriate our national and institutional responses. In this context, our experience already suggests that the responses of national organisations are overlaid by disciplinary differences, which in some cases cross national boundaries. Simply to take the examples with which I am most familiar, there are fundamentally different views about what a core content of Political Science ought to be in Germany, in Italy, in France and in the United Kingdom, to say nothing of the strongly held views of colleagues in The Netherlands and Denmark. These relate to the historical development of the discipline, to its relationship with cognate disciplines and which of these is most significant, and to the particular relationship of political science both to national policy-makers and to the labour market as a producer of graduates and as a producer of research. Among the 16 countries who agreed to the core curriculum, there are probably at least 16 different collective views of what political science is, including on whether the term Science is appropriate at all; these views depend on many factors, such as how and when political science developed in 19th- and 20th-century universities, what its relationship is with processes of national emancipation, whether it developed in faculties of law, history or sociology, whether its staff are predominantly trained in home universities or look elsewhere for specialist training, how many of them have been subject to the American experience, how successful it is in placing its graduates in ministries of education, in public service broadcasting and in public service management. It is scarcely surprising that while representatives from some countries could not conceive of a political science degree which lacked methodology and statistics, others were adamant that to include this would alienate students and exclude some smaller units from providing political science degree programmes. Some countries thought Political Sociology had to be a core subject, others wanted to exclude this and include Political Economy. Some thought they had to reference to non-European major states, especially the USA, others wanted to focus on Europe. If you want to see how this worked out in practice, I can only recommend you look at the final version. This only makes sense if you appreciate that representatives agreed to interpret some key terms in quite different ways. I had never appreciated before how many meanings could be attached to the term “Political Sociology”. Is this problematic? At one level, only if

The European Conference of National Political Science Associations

405

we regard the curriculum as prescriptive; at another level, it is surely a crucial point in the development of a genuinely European political science that we acknowledge and learn from these differences, as I think I did in this experience. A central task for the ECNPSA ought to be to refine some of the terms used in the core curriculum, not so as to prescribe inappropriate content, but so as to demonstrate to our wider community the full range of approaches proper to our interests, and how these may be delivered. We should also not over-state the extent to which these disciplinary differences map on to national differences. For example, in the consultation for the drafting of the agreed core curriculum, some of the responses I received from within the political science community echoed the concerns voiced by representatives of smaller countries about the possible harmful impact of a prescriptive approach on the capacity of relatively small units to deliver a core curriculum. The effect of this is to provide scope for cross-national agreements and collaboration which might not be immediately obvious. The third role for the ECNPSA, therefore, is to co-ordinate and encourage collaboration among national responses. So it is not correct to say that the range of difference in Higher Education structures and practices among us is so great that little comparison or coordination among us is possible; as a further example, an Episteme project I have been involved in led by Michael Goldsmith on the impact of Bologna on doctoral degrees revealed very considerable ranges of size and of practice which in part related to the Higher Education structures and in part to the predominance of different views about the proper identity of the discipline. We quickly discovered that one of the important differences among us, in terms of PhD work, was whether the PhD was directed narrowly at academic reproduction or more broadly at the production of potential entrants to public and private sector management. This has major effects both on the size of the input and on the content of the doctoral training. This divergence of experience, merely one example for the sake of illustration, and one which had an impact in the core curriculum, does not prevent us agreeing to collaborate, does not prevent us learning from one another, and need not prevent us coming to a common view about core principles, precisely because, it seems to me, the agreement is based on a mutual respect and on a willingness to find our common interests. If we did not have that, we would be unable to work together and this chapter would be futile; if we did not have that, we would have been unable to produce the agreed core curriculum.

2.4

What Would an ECNPSA do and how would it Work?

The range of subjects which need tackling by such an organisation is daunting. The problem is not that it has no role, and no work to do, but that it has

406

Paul Furlong

potentially too much of both. Some idea of what might be a suitable agenda for its first meeting can be reached by looking at the work which epsNet has been doing over the last few years, at the issues that this conference partly deals with, and at the range of issues which Bologna has set itself. I am head of School of one of the largest Schools for European Studies in the United Kingdom. We have extensive links with many other European universities, links which have become both more important and more problematic in the last few years. My university for the last three years has been the largest single sender and receiver of Erasmus students in the United Kingdom. I have direct professional interest in many of these questions. Let me list for you briefly areas where I believe we urgently need a European voice in political science, issues on which I urgently need to know what others are doing where we need to get our concerns across, based both on my concerns as an academic who has to manage a School, and what I have learnt from my experience in the ECNPSA. Without much elaboration, here is a work list for the European conference which maps to some extent onto the epsNet objectives: Teaching issues • Curriculum content (first, second, and third cycles), • Degree frameworks (relationship of second to first and third particularly), • Common degrees (joint, double, or multiple), • Student mobility (compulsory period abroad, language-teaching elements), • Common credit arrangements (ECTS), • Quality assurance, • Assessment procedures; Research issues • Doctoral training (content and organisation), • National and European financial support for research projects, • Relations with cognate disciplines, • Relations with associated disciplines (Public Administration, International Relations, Political Communication), • Access to and influence with national and European policy-makers; Generic issues • Support for new EU members and non-EU Bologna signatories, • Staff mobility, • Staff-career issues (including training), • Labour-market issues, • Promotion of the discipline. No doubt, there are omissions and differing priorities. My concern is not to be exhaustive but rather to illustrate why we can no longer conceive of

The European Conference of National Political Science Associations

407

purely national solutions. I would echo the judgement of Michael Goldsmith, in his conclusion to the Episteme report on Bologna and doctoral studies2 that there is a clear need for collaborative work across national political science associations. The European Conference should among other things approve guidelines, for example in doctoral studies, resulting from epsNet and others, which encourage the adoption of comparable standards and procedures in individual countries, which thereby support the development of cross-national arrangements in political science, and which bring our professional concerns to the attention of national and European policy makers. This must be preferable to leaving these matters to multi-disciplinary or generalist committees either at national of European level. While the elaboration of such guidelines depends crucially on the work of epsNet, the national political science associations and to a lesser extent ECPR, the missing piece in the structures is the lack of an authoritative pan-European organisation, which without prescribing what national associations should do, can legitimately represent the considered view of the profession across Europe.

2

Goldsmith, M. (ed.), 2005, Doctoral studies in Political Science – a European comparison, epsNet report no 10, published jointly epsNet, Univ. di Roma Tor Vergata and Sciences Po Paris, Paris, p. 67.

European Political Science – The Role of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Dirk Berg-Schlosser

1 Introductory Remark I want to present, first, a brief assessment of the situation of political science in Europe and, second, describe ECPR’s role in shaping the discipline during the last three and a half decades. For this purpose, I have re-phrased the title of this contribution. Rather than speaking about “Sustaining and Developing an Organisational Infrastructure for Research”, I simply call my topic “European Political Science – The Role of ECPR”.

2 European Political Science – “Unity in Diversity” The political sciences in Europe, and the plural form of the term is still used quite frequently as here at “Sciences Po”, have been shaped by a great variety of traditions. They have roots in classic political philosophy, public and international law, history, economics, and a variety of other disciplines. Indeed, the first academic institutionalizaton of political sciences at the “Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques” in 1871 in Paris, the “London School of Economics and Political Science” in 1885, or the “Hochschule für Politik” at Berlin in 1919 were largely conglomerates of these various disciplines and they remain so, to a certain extent, up to the present day. I cannot go into all these traditions in any detail, but they are reflected, for example, in the edited volumes by Easton, Gunnell and Graziano on “The Development of Political Science – a Comparative Survey” in 1991, by Lietzmann and Bleek “Politikwissenschaft – Geschichte und Entwicklung”, 1996, and the report prepared here at the Fondation des Sciences Politiques on “La Science Politique en Europe: Formation, Cooperation, Perspectives” in 1996. Instead, I will focus on the emergence of political science as a specific academic discipline of its own in the singular form of the term, if you wish,

410

Dirk Berg-Schlosser

in various European countries after World War II. To put it very briefly, in my view and based on the volumes mentioned and related sources, there have been five major factors in this respect: 1. Varying national traditions of education and university systems, for example highly centralized systems in France and some Southern European countries, but also in Sweden, decentralized institutions in the United Kingdom or Germany, and “pillarized” systems in the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland. Similarly, in some countries, as in France, academic teaching and research have been more strictly separated, in others the “Humboldt” tradition of a “unity” of both has been followed more closely. These traditions are directly related to the employment opportunities of graduates of political science institutes in the respective countries. In France and Norway, for example, they may find their way relatively easily into the higher ranks of the state apparatus, in others, like in Portugal or Austria, this is still largely the monopoly of persons mainly trained in the legal profession. 2. Related to the first factor is the second one, the relationship to neighbouring disciplines such as public law, history, philosophy, economics, sociology and their respective “standing” and institutional impact. Compared to most of these and also in contrast, for example, to the United States, political science has been a “latecomer” in Europe. From the outside it often has been regarded with some suspicion and even animosity, but since about the early 1970s, and it is fair to say that the ECPR has substantially contributed to this, it generally has become a more established and respected field. 3. A third factor, which played a significant role, is external influences. In Germany, for example, the establishment of the first university chairs in political science was done as part of the “re-education” programme by the Allied forces after World War II. Also the Ford Foundation and similar organisations funded activities in this respect. This also applies to some Southern European and now Eastern European countries after their transitions to democracy. Today, the influence of the European Union and its exchange programmes like Socrates or Erasmus and most recently, of course, the “Bologna” and “Lisbon” processes have been the major external forces affecting the development of the discipline. 4. Furthermore, political science in many European countries for a long time, and still to some extent even today, has been characterized by a sharp internal “meta-theoretical” differentiation. For example, there have been strong normative-philosophical tendencies in some countries along the lines of writers like Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss and others. Elsewhere, more or less orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist doctrines dominated for a while. In all countries nowadays more empirical and analytical orientations, but not necessarily in a purely “behaviouralist” or

European Political Science – The Role of ECPR

411

“rational choice” mode, can also be found. There are still varying “mixtures” of such tendencies in the respective countries. However, a certain “convergence” can be observed in the direction of a stronger empirical emphasis but keeping an eye on normative problems, for example in democratic theory or neo-Marxist arguments in the field of international political economy. 5. Finally, all this has led to a relatively firm establishment of the discipline in most countries where its further chances depend on the quality of outputs in teaching and research. Since the 1970s, out of this diversity a certain professionalization and acceptance of common standards at least in certain “core areas” like electoral research, party systems, public administration, policy research, international relations, but also in more general comparative approaches and methods has occurred. There have also been a high and still increasing number of students in these fields and the overall quality of their substantive knowledge and methodological skills, but also the “soft skills” of presenting one’s findings, team work, or international communications have been considerably improved in the course of time. Thus, in all countries nowadays, political scientists can be found in a large variety of fields such as civic education, the media, interest groups and political parties, NGOs, or international organisations, and, on the whole, they are competing well with graduates from other disciplines. Some, indeed, have even gone into active politics in prominent positions.

3 The Role of ECPR 3.1

Original Structure and Activities

Against this more general background, I will now briefly turn to the impact ECPR has had on these developments and its present and possibly future position and role. ECPR was founded in 1970 by such pioneers of European political science as Stein Rokkan, Jean Blondel, Rudolf Wildenmann, Hans Daalder, Serge Hurtig, Richard Rose and others. It was originally modelled on the “Inter-University Consortium for Political Research” (ICPR) at the University of Michigan which basically was, and still is, a data collecting and training institution for quantitative methods in the social sciences. Having institutional membership only, it was based on the simple, but, as it turned out, very productive idea to “let institutions pay and individuals benefit”. Thus, on this basis from the beginning ECPR was with Jean Blondel as its first Executive Director at Essex on a sound organisational footing.

Dirk Berg-Schlosser

412

A major innovation then was brought about by Rudolf Wildenmann who in 1973 organized the first “Joint Sessions of Workshops” at the University of Mannheim. These provided a new and up to the present day most successful format of bringing together in relatively small groups both senior and junior scholars where everyone is obliged to present a paper on ongoing research with sufficient time to discuss it in much greater detail than can be provided at the big national or international conferences. At the same time, staying almost a week together provided ample opportunity for social contacts of all kinds which led to many fruitful research networks in the course of time. With the support of the member institutions and some extra outside funding since this time, it has become possible, which is also a unique feature, to reimburse the participants for some of their travel and accommodation expenses. In the meantime, also substantial “mobility” and “scholarship” funds have been created for additional support for graduate students and young scholars without permanent employment so that, in fact, a member institution may get more out of ECPR than it pays in. Together with some other activities, like the launching of the “European Journal for Political Research” (EJPR) with Arend Lijphart as its first editor, the smaller “research sessions” which provided seed money for new initiatives, and the co-sponsorship of the methods summer school at Essex, ECPR increasingly made its impact felt on the development of political science all over Europe. Having had from the beginning a strong empirical, not only “behavioralist” but also comparative and historical-sociological orientation in Rokkan’s sense, the variety of subject matters of the workshops increased in the course of time and included topics from normative and positive political theory, international relations, policy research and related areas. In this way, ECPR became the major force to integrate to some extent the great diversity of political science traditions in Europe referred to above and to socialize an entire generation of younger and now “middle-aged” or even older political scientists like Hans-Dieter Klingemann or myself into a broad, but nevertheless diverse “mainstream” of shared academic standards of excellence and relevance, including now, since the early 1990, a considerable number of scholars from Central and Eastern Europe.

3.2

Recent Enlargements and Developments

This great, and I think undisputed success has led to the fact that since then ECPR has transgressed its original largely research-oriented focus. Within its framework, there are now a great number of permanent “standing groups”, at the moment 26 altogether, comparable to the “sections” of APSA or the “research committees” of IPSA, which have, in part, developed their own newsletters, meetings, summers schools and even journals like the successful

European Political Science – The Role of ECPR

413

“European Journal of International Relations”. Since the “Joint Sessions” have reached their maximum capacity by now (there were 30 workshops at Granada in 2005 and there will be 29 in 2006 at Nicosia assembling more than 600 participants), at the initiative of the then Executive Director, Ken Newton, also a series of regular “General Conferences” was started to be held on a biannual basis. The last one was hosted by Marburg University in 2003, and the next one will take place in Budapest in 2005 with again more than a thousand participants. These conferences follow a more general format with both a thematic part and panels organized by the standing groups or in some ad hoc sections and panels. In this way, a more general need to exchange research results and communicate about ongoing developments can be served on a broader basis which includes also a greater number of scholars from smaller non-member institutions with only a low differential in the registration fee. From 2005 onwards, also a “Graduate Conference” will be held to alternate in future with the “General Conferences”. For future activities at this level we also have created a very active Graduate Network with several thousand members. In addition, there will be a new methods summer school organized by ECPR at Ljubljana starting in 2006 to supplement the ones at Essex and Lille (for francophone students) to satisfy an increasing demand generated by the curricula of the new BA/MA courses of the Bologna Process with a stronger emphasis on research design and methods for empirical research. Altogether, there are now 10 more or less regular summer schools in a greater variety of fields which receive ECPR support. Furthermore, a new journal for the profession, “European Political Science” (EPS), was successfully launched. ECPR has now also, in addition to the book series edited jointly with Oxford University Press and Routledge, an own book series published under the ECPR label including both “classic” and contemporary major works. Finally, the awarding of regular prizes like the “Stein Rokkan” and “Rudolf Wildenmann” prizes and the new “Lifetime Achievement Award”, which will be presented for the first time at Budapest in 2005, enhance the progress and public visibility of our profession.

3.3

Relationships to Other Associations

ECPR today with more than 300 member institutions comprising more than 8000 political scientists (plus graduate students) is, after APSA and even before IPSA, the second largest political science association in the world in terms of its regular activities, budget and personnel. It is now followed by other regional organisations like the recent “Asian Consortium for Political Research” (ACPR). With all associations of this kind we keep constant contact. There are also agreements now with APSA and IPSA to regularly organ-

414

Dirk Berg-Schlosser

ize panels at each others’ conferences and we will do so at APSA’s meeting in Washington this year and at IPSA’s World Congress in Fukuoka next year. Thus, for most practical purposes ECPR is the European Political Science Association, in contrast to what Hans-Dieter Klingemann expressed in his invitation. That is not to say that other organisations do not have a role to play. In any case, the respective national associations which also have increased their membership and became more active during the last decades will, of course, continue to exist. Their loose “European Conference” certainly remains a useful information and coordination mechanism which may “piggyback” as in the past, at ECPR’s regular events. As far as epsNet’s future is concerned this is, of course, not for me to say. In my view, this could become a mutually supportive and productive relationship with ECPR in one way or another. There have been some ideas and proposals in this respect, but this is up for discussion.

4 Conclusions In spite of the highly diverse traditions and influences in European political science, ECPR has come a long way to contribute to its quality and relevance. And this is not only true in the purely “academic” sense of the word, but it also refers to ECPR’s constant and increasing concerns about political developments in Europe and beyond. Being a European political science association ECPR has always had a strong focus on European politics and the emerging unique system which is now called the “European Union” and which, I am confident, will continue to develop in spite of present setbacks. At our last conference in Marburg the major theme concerned “The New Europe – Problems and Prospects“ which was discussed in 10 symposia where both academics and persons actively engaged in politics at various levels have participated. Similarly, the thematic part of the Budapest conference, in addition to other sections dealing with such topics, will be concerned with “Unity and Diversity in Europe”. ECPR as an organization is also involved in the “Initiative for Science in Europe” (ISE), the “European Science Council” (ESC) which is in its planning phase, and the preparation of the 7th EU research framework programme. However, also beyond the European context there are concerns about political developments worldwide. Aspects of further democratisation, the protection of basic human rights, the satisfaction of basic social and economic needs, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the chances and pitfalls of further “globalization”, long-term environmental sustainability, and similar issues will have to be critically analyzed for a long time to come. In all this, or at least in many subjects and approaches, there is a distinct European perspec-

European Political Science – The Role of ECPR

415

tive or “flavour”. European political science, faced by the great diversity mentioned above, is by necessity more historically-oriented, more comparative, more macro-sociological in the Rokkanian tradition than its American counterpart (see also McKay 1988). Even though the Europeans have learned a lot, of course, over the last decades on both sides of the Atlantic, I would tend to concur with Philippe Schmitter’s recent polemic which was published in the new journal, EPS, and which he addressed to his American colleagues: “For those who want to practice a political science that is critical of established power, sensitive to the distinctive nature of its subject matter and capable of explaining the complexities of political life to real people, they would be better advised to ‘Go East … and, if possible, now and then, South’. That is where you will be free to question prevailing assumptions, to develop innovative concepts and methods, to address issues of significance and, maybe, even to influence the course of political events. You will also be more likely to make a significant contribution to a globalised science of politics.”

References Berg-Schlosser, Dirk (1998): “Vergleichende europäische Politikwissenschaft – Ansätze einer Bestandsaufnahme“, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 39 (4): 829-840. Blondel, Jean (1997): “Amateurs into Professionals“, in: Hans Daalder (ed.): Comparative European Politics – The Story of a Profession, London: Pinter. Easton, David / John G. Gunnell / Luigi Graziano (eds.) (1991): The Development of Political Science, London: Routledge. Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (1996): La Science Politique en Europe: Formation, Coopération, Perspectives, Paris: Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Laver, Michael / Arend Lijphart / Peter Mair (eds.): European Journal of Political Research, 25th Anniversary Issue, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lietzmann, Hans J. / Wilhelm Bleek (1996): Politikwissenschaft – Geschichte und Entwicklung in Deutschland und Europa, München: R. Oldenbourg. McKay, David (1988): “Why is there a European Political Science?” PS: Political Science and Politics Fall 20 (3): 1051-1055. Schmitter, Philippe (2002): “Seven (disputable) Theses Concerning the Future of ‘Transatlanticised’ or ‘Globalised’ Political Science”, European Political Science Spring 1/2: 23-40. Vallès, Josep M. / Kenneth Newton (eds.) (1991): “Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-1990”, European Journal of Political Research 20 (3-4): 227-238.

The European Political Science Network Richard Topf The European Political Science Network (epsNet) was launched in June 2001 in Paris as a charitable association of political scientists devoted to the promotion of discussion, exchange and co-operation in the field of political science teaching in Europe. The Preamble to its Constitution states that epsNet will: “contribute, in close co-operation with other organisations representative of the discipline, towards providing our scientific community in Europe with a range of services for the improvement and the development of the teaching of political science and to the better organisation of the profession.”

The Constitution elaborates this rôle to include the objectives which are now embodied into the epsNet Mission Statement: • • • • • • •

promoting co-operation in the teaching of political science; together with political science associations and other organizations, providing a forum for the discussion of issues relating to the discipline, including the Bologna Process; providing a periodic review of the state of the discipline, and on women in the profession; strengthening links between the academic community and the labour market; stimulating the exchange and mobility of staff and students; enhancing the visibility of the discipline and the profession; providing members with information on the profession.

1 Origins The origins of the Network can be traced to a seminal conference in Paris in 1996 which reviewed the state of political science in Europe in general, and the importance of the Erasmus programme for the development of European political science in particular. The final report of this conference was produced by Jean-Louis Quermonne, then President of the French Political Science Association, and concluded that the European dimension of political science needed more attention.

418

Richard Topf

Following Quermonne’s report, Gérard Grunberg of Sciences Po, Paris, together with a Steering Committee of five colleagues, set about creating the European Thematic Network in Political Science, under the Thematic Networks action of the European Union’s (EU) Socrates Programme. The Thematic Network (TN) evolved into an organisation with over 200 institutional members from 28 European countries, including 22 national Political Science Associations. During its lifespan from 1997 to 2001, under the guidance of Grunberg as Co-ordinator and Ewa Kulesza as Secretary General, the TN held four plenary conferences, and published two books and some five professional papers and reports. However, the EU funding for Thematic Networks was for a maximum period of five years, and it became clear at the penultimate Plenary Conference that its members wished to see the continuation of its activities even after EU support ended. They gave a mandate for the institutionalisation of a permanent, autonomous and democratic organisation: the European Political Science Network (epsNet). A draft constitution was then drawn up by a Working Group comprising members of the Thematic Network Steering Committee, together with Hans-Dieter Klingemann (WZB) and Yves Schemeil (IEP de Grenoble and Vice-President of IPSA). In June 2001, epsNet was registered as an association according to French law. Over 100 individual members, half from Central and Eastern Europe, and some 40 collective members of the Thematic Network decided to join. An Interim Committee was set up, paving the way to elections for the Executive Council of epsNet in Spring 2002.

2 Organisation epsNet is organised as a democratic, membership-based, professional association funded, primarily, by membership subscription. There are four categories of member - individual, collective (being departmental or institutional collectivities of individuals), doctoral students, and associate members. The members comprise the General Assembly, who elect a General Council of 18 members every three years, at least one-third must be of each gender, two doctoral representatives, and not more than two members from any one country. The General Council, in turn, elects the President, and a Co-ordinating Committee of three. With an overall turnout of 70 percent, in 2002 the first General Assembly elected a Council of one-third females, and one-third from Central and Eastern Europe. Hans-Dieter Klingemann became the first elected President. The 2005 elections saw some two-thirds new membership of the Executive

The European Political Science Network

419

Council, comprising one-half female, and, again, a third from Central and Eastern Europe. Richard Topf succeeded as President. A Secretary General is responsible for day-to-day administration. In 2002, Sciences Po, Paris, magnanimously continued to offer its hospitality to the new Network until 2004, with Ewa Kulesza as its Secretary General. Since 2004, the administration of the Network has been decentralised, with the Secretariat General based at the Central European University, Budapest, and an Office of European Affairs and Programmes at the University of Rome Tor Vergata.

3 Activities EpsNet has sought to fulfil its multi-faceted mission by a combination of: • • • • •

substantive research projects; annual plenary conferences; training workshops; hard-copy publication of books and research reports and working papers; electronic publication of teaching materials, a resource-rich web site, an electronic journal, and newsletters.

Clearly these activities are closely inter-related. Research projects and training workshops stimulate plenary conference sessions, whilst conference presentations have added further depth to research projects. All have, in turn, led to electronic and/or hard-copy publications.

3.1

Projects

Initiated in 2001/02 under the auspices of the Thematic Network, epsNet was fortunate to succeed to EPISTEME (Enhancing Political Science Teaching Quality and Mobility in Europe), a project funded by the EU Directorate General: Education, Culture and Youth. This was itself succeeded by POLIS (Political Science Teaching Quality and Mobility − Dissemination of Results), which ran until September 2005. These resources were co-ordinated, respectively, by Sciences Po, Paris, and the University of Rome Tor Vergata, and enabled the members of epsNet to engage in a systematic programme of research into curriculum development, and the state of the profession. Teaching and Professional Development Committees were established, and it must suffice here to give a flavour of the some of the project work undertaken.

420

Richard Topf

State of the Discipline This project aimed, quite simply, to continue to provide an overview of the current state and future perspectives of political science in Europe. It built on the work of Quermonne in the 1990s on West Europe (see above), and that of Klingemann et al. (2002), under the auspices of the Thematic Network, on Central and Eastern Europe. Quermonne chaired a Plenary Session on the state of the Discipline at the 2005 Annual Conference. Klingemann chaired a Roundtable at the 2006 Conference. This volume is the final product.

Political Science in Europe after Bologna Two projects fall under this head. First, Reinalda and Kulesza published The Bologna Process − Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education (Reinalda/Kulesza (2005), with the essential original texts, including the 2003 submission of the epsNet Executive Council to the Berlin Ministerial Meeting. Second, Erkki Berndtson (University of Helsinki) led a project on how staff and student mobility relate to the quality of teaching. The research included a mobility survey and country studies, and the final report appeared in 2005 as epsNet Report No. 9 (Berndtson 2005).

Adapting European Doctoral Studies to the Post-Bologna Context Mike Goldsmith (University of Salford and then Vice-President, epsNet) led a project on Doctoral Studies and the Bologna Process which analysed the current practice and experience of political science doctoral studies in eight European countries. The final report was published as epsNet Report No. 10 in 2005 (Goldsmith 2005).

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and EU Virtual Learning The application of ICT for political science has been a sustained theme for epsNet, realised through a dedicated resource area on its web site, and handson training sessions in four of its five plenary conferences. The EU Virtual Learning project, under the leadership of Wolfgang Wessels (University of Cologne), has added a new, important dimension, by the development of a set of three, substantive e-learning modules on the European Convention, EU External Relations, and EU Institutions and Modes of Governance. They were released in 2005 and are available on open access on the epsNet web site (http://www.epsnet.org/episteme/home_and_contact/EPSnet_Home.htm).

Professional Training Workshops for Young University Teachers In September 2002, epsNet and Sciences Po hosted a two-day Workshop on professional training in political science, which included reports of earlier

The European Political Science Network

421

research as part of the EPISTEME project. The proceedings of which were published in 2003 (Thorlakson 2003). Complementing this work, Gabriela Gregušová (Comenius University, Bratislava) initiated a project to help young university teachers of political science to improve their teaching practice. The first Workshops took place during 2004 epsNet conference in Prague, with 15 young university teachers from different European countries participating. Such was the success of this project, that the Workshops have been repeated during both the 2005 and 2006 conferences. In 2005 epsNet launched a new publication series, the epsNet Teaching Political Science Series, and two volumes on How to Teach Political Science? have so far appeared (Gregušová 2005a, 2005b).

3.2

Doctoral Students

It must be a truism for almost all academic disciplines that their doctoral students represent the future of their profession. Like many professional associations, epsNet includes doctoral students on its Executive Council, elected by doctoral student members, who are offered much reduced membership fees. Indeed, until 2005, doctoral student membership was free. The two doctoral members of the Executive Council play a full and equal part in the Council’s activities. Gabriela Gregušová, for example, was at the time still a doctoral student member when she organised the first workshops for first-time university teachers. That said, whilst a significant proportion of the plenary conference papers are accepted from doctoral students, attempts so far to fulfil the Council’s 2002 strategic priority to increase the overall involvement of the graduate membership in epsNet activities have proved less successful. There are, of course, structural reasons for this. Doctoral students have their own career agendas, and it must be recognised that even a published paper on political science teaching or professional matters may be perceived to a less valuable addition to a curriculum vitae than substantive academic research. Herein lies a more general point to be returned to later.

3.3

Plenary Conferences

Plenary conferences are essential to the well-being of any professional network and since its launch in 2002, epsNet has held annual conferences in Budapest, Krakow, Paris (twice) and Prague. Some 650 participants have attended overall. Papers were presented and discussed at some ten plenary sessions and 55 workshops and panels. A particular feature of the plenary conferences is that each year, their themes address both substantive political science research on European is-

Richard Topf

422

sues − such as European identity, enlargement, and most recently, the Constitution − and professional and pedagogic issues. Thus, not only were conference sessions an integral part of the each of the projects outlined above, but, for example, the 2006 conference included a roundtable which presented the recently launched European Platform of Women Scientists, and one on Publishing in English lead by Steven Kennedy, Director of politics publications for Palgrave Macmillan. Similarly, convenors of epsNet conferences have always endeavoured to invite their plenary speakers from across the spectrum. They have included such senior members of the political science profession as Hans Daalder (Leiden), Giorgio Freddi (Bologna), and Jean-Louis Quermonne (Sciences Po, Paris) and Commissioners and Directors-General of the European Union (Péter Balázs, Ettore Deodato, Angela Libertore, and Olli Rehn). Bridging that spectrum, in 2006 a roundtable featured George Soros (Chairman and Founder, Open Society Institute, Soros Foundations Network) as the recipient of academic reviews of his most recent book on The Age of Fallibility (Soros 2006), and in particular, his views on the potential world rôle of the European Union.

3.4

Publications

An audit of the project deliverables would show that since 2002, epsNet has produced three books, three reports, two volumes in the series How to Teach Political Science, and three, full, virtual EU e-learning units. In electronic format, since 2003 there have been five editions of Kiosk Plus, THE NET Journal of Political Science, with articles about epsNet projects, the profession, teaching and training, as well as reviews, an Open Forum, and Nethesis, the doctoral students’ platform. The web site (http://www.epsnet.org) provides an open-access overview of epsNet activities, including the proceedings of plenary conferences, a resources area focussing on ICT and teaching, and a membership directory. Network members also have access to electronic editions of all epsNet publications except books.

3.5

External Relations

It is unsurprising that the Preamble to the epsNet Constitution was drafted to include a specific reference to “close co-operation with other organisations representative of the profession”. The 1998/99 Progress Report of the Thematic Network (Grunberg/Kulesza) highlighted one of its achievements as the organisation of a first meeting of representatives of national political

The European Political Science Network

423

science associations in January 1998, with some 22 national associations being partners in the TN. Since the 2001 launch, some dozen European, national political science associations have continued as Associate Members of epsNet. Elsewhere in this volume, Paul Furlong advances the case for a European Conference of National Political Science Associations to address a range of issues which, as he himself puts it: “maps to some extent onto epsNet objectives” (see Furlong in this volume, p. 406). EpsNet intends to continue, pro-actively to play whatever part it can to facilitate discussion and collaboration between European national political science associations, whatever may be the institutional framework that evolves. In addition to European political science associations, epsNet has also established contacts with the American Political Science Association (APSA). APSA is an Associate Member of epsNet and has presented papers at epsNet plenary conferences on doctoral education, and on professional practices. Reciprocally, epsNet organised a Panel on the Bologna Process at the 2006 APSA Annual Teaching and Learning Conference in Political Science in Washington DC. The 1998/99 Thematic Network Report also pointed to collaboration with the European Consortium for Political Research over the creation of a Directory of Political Scientists. It would seem fair to say that unproclaimed reciprocal activities have been continuous ever since in areas of overlapping interest. Richard Topf has chaired Panels on ICT and political science teaching at all three of the ECPR General Conferences since 2001. Dirk BergSchlosser was invited to be a plenary speaker on the state of the discipline at the 2005 epsNet plenary conference, and his paper is published in this volume. ECPR and epsNet have jointly sponsored and supported the European Summer University which has now run for two years at the University of Grenoble with John Groom (University of Kent) as the Project Co-ordinator.

4 Conclusion Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the discipline of political science in Europe in the 21st century is its variation. In the United Kingdom, some 2,200 staff are employed in over 90 University Departments of Politics. Goldsmith and Grant describe the demands for politics courses as “buoyant” (see this volume, p. 396). In contrast, more than one member of the epsNet Executive Council holds a Professorship in Politics in an institution where they are the sole representative of the discipline on the staff. Within the UK, where Politics has been taught for over a century, and there is a traditional of autonomous universities, it may be unsurprising that

424

Richard Topf

less than 20 percent of staff favour a core political science curriculum. In other European countries, not least in Central and Eastern Europe, the discipline is still in its first generation. Yet, at the same time, the parallel but distinct processes of the Bologna Process and EU Enlargement are accompanied by the expectation of student and job mobility, with increasing harmonisation of higher education. It was precisely in the recognition of these trends that Grunberg and colleagues set out the objectives of the Political Science Thematic Network, a decade ago. Grass-roots demand enabled Klingemann and colleagues to continue their pioneering work through the institutionalisation of epsNet. Furlong has listed some of the tasks common to epsNet and a putative European Conference of National Political Science Associations. On the last count, there are just under 50 European political science associations. Arguably, the newest and smallest may be the ones whose members have the greatest needs. The record to date suggests that there remains much work still to be done to provide the expertise and services needed by our profession for the teaching of political science. It was noted at the outset that close co-operation with other organisations representative of the discipline is integral to the very concept of epsNet, and that commitment is unwavering.

References Berndtson, Erkki (ed.) (2005): Mobile Europe: Improving Faculty and Student Mobility Conditions in Europe, epsNet Report No. 9, Paris: epsNet/University of Rome Tor Vergata/Sciences Po. Goldsmith, Michael (ed.) (2005): Doctoral Studies in Political Science – A European Comparison, epsNet Report No. 10, Paris: epsNet/University of Rome Tor Vergata/Sciences Po. Gregušová, Gabriela (ed.) (2005a): How to Teach Political Science? The Experience of First-Time University Teachers, Volume 1, Budapest: epsNet. Gregušová, Gabriela (ed.) (2005b): How to Teach Political Science? The Experience of First-Time University Teachers, Volume 2, Paris: epsNet/University of Rome Tor Vergata/Sciences Po. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter / Ewa Kulesza / Annette Legutke (eds.) (2002): The State of Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe, Berlin: edition sigma. Reinalda, Bob / Ewa Kulesza (2005): The Bologna Process − Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education, Opladen/Bloomfield Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Soros, George (2006): The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, New York: Public Affairs. Thorlakson, Lori (ed.) (2003): Professional Practice in European Political Science, epsNet Report No. 8, Paris: epsNet/University of Rome Tor Vergata/Sciences Po.

Index admission 50, 61, 80-82, 90, 171, 232, 247, 284, 298, 326, 353 APSA 253, 271, 293, 357, 396, 398, 412 f., 423 Austria 5, 43-48, 52 f., 410 Bachelor, BA 49, 61, 64, 71, 77-81, 89, 106 f., 117-120, 165, 171, 173 f., 183, 204, 260 f., 264, 280282, 284-287, 296, 299 f., 362-369, 372, 401 Belgium 5, 57, 59, 65-67, 69 f., 152, 373, 410 Bologna Process 49, 73, 78 f., 86, 89, 106, 109, 129, 142, 158, 165 f., 171 f., 175, 182 f., 186, 206, 231, 245 f., 259 f., 279 f., 293, 298, 322, 326 f., 330 f., 358, 393, 395, 402 f., 413, 417, 420, 423-425, 435, 437 Cyprus 5, 73-80, 82-85 degree system 50, 61, 80, 90, 247, 284, 353 degree structure 90 f., 106 f., 166, 174, 279, 326, 327 democracy 45, 52, 58, 66, 97, 118, 122-124, 178-180, 187, 190, 193 f., 214, 217, 224 f., 235 f., 304, 325, 332, 336, 342 f., 375, 377, 397, 410 Denmark 5, 87-89, 91-96, 98-100, 341, 357 f., 404 doctoral studies, PhD 49, 53, 61 f., 64, 77, 80-82, 87, 89, 91-93, 96 f., 99 f., 107, 113, 115, 120, 142, 152, 173 f., 204, 206, 208, 210 f., 222, 229-233, 235, 239-241, 249, 261, 265, 273, 277, 280 f., 283 f., 287, 289 f., 301, 318 f., 327, 330-334, 338, 349-351, 355, 357 f., 36-365, 369-372, 384, 388, 397, 405, 407, 420 ECPR 7, 11 f., 53, 67, 69, 98, 127 f., 155-157, 182, 213, 238, 253, 271 f., 291-293, 336, 355, 357, 373, 383, 398, 401, 403, 407, 409-414, 423

ECTS 49, 51, 64, 75, 79-81, 83, 89, 91, 107, 280, 284, 322, 330, 358, 363, 366, 406 elections and party competition 252 electoral studies 58, 67, 96, 133, 238, 276 f., 288, 343, 354, 377, 390 epsNet 11 f., 53, 69, 79, 84, 98, 127, 137, 157, 176, 182, 213, 253, 271, 292 f., 308, 336, 393, 396, 401, 403, 406 f., 414, 417-424 European integration 11 f., 49, 51-53, 73 f., 80, 82 f., 105, 178-180, 234238, 249, 370, 372, 377 European Union 12, 52 f., 74, 83 f., 106, 118 f., 121, 124, 176, 179 f., 210 f., 216, 223, 235, 280, 286, 289 f., 321, 332, 334, 346, 367, 384 f., 388, 396, 410, 414, 418, 422 Europeanisation 71, 358 fee structure, tuition fee 47, 51 f., 61, 82, 106, 173, 229, 233, 248 f., 285, 381, 385, 421 fee structure, tuitition fee 51 Finland 5, 103-105, 108 f., 113-117, 119, 121-129, 344 France 5, 58, 137-139, 142 f., 146, 156 f., 159, 178, 180, 260, 314 f., 318, 344, 373 f., 397, 404, 410 funding 51, 65, 83, 95, 100, 116, 125 f., 129, 166, 168, 177, 205, 209, 212, 237 f., 245, 249-251, 266 f., 280, 284, 288, 303 f., 307, 325, 331, 334, 338, 347, 374, 377, 383, 386-390, 392 f., 412, 418 Germany 5, 44, 103, 156, 163, 165176, 178-181, 183, 255, 260, 314, 342, 344, 397, 404, 410 grants 48, 52, 159, 207, 210, 237 f., 260, 280, 284, 334, 381, 386 f. Greece 6, 74 f., 82, 187, 195, 197, 198-206, 208, 210, 213, 215 f., 218, 220, 222 f., 225 f., 397 human rights 84, 179, 194, 213, 235,

426 315 f., 414 Iceland 6, 127, 168, 229-241 internationalisation 126, 129, 267, 396 IPSA 53, 69, 85, 98, 126-128, 158, 182, 200, 202, 213, 218, 253, 271, 276, 292 f., 336, 355, 357, 373, 396, 412 f., 418 Ireland 6, 243-254, 260, 387 Italy 6, 156, 190 f., 255, 257-260, 267 f., 270 f., 313, 315, 397, 404 Licentiate 60, 62 f., 107, 120, 352 Master, MA 49, 51, 63 f., 71, 77 f., 8082, 92, 107, 109, 117-120, 139, 159 f., 165, 167, 171, 173 f., 183, 208, 211, 222, 230 f., 233, 236, 240 f., 249, 260, 277, 280-282, 284 f., 287, 298-301, 319, 327, 330, 333 f., 338, 345, 353, 355, 363-366, 368-372, 384, 433 f. North-South conflict 52 Norway 95, 156, 295, 298, 301, 307 f,, 357, 410 numerus clausus 50, 75, 82, 174 Political Behaviour 303, 329, 343, 365, 366, 384 political institutions 63, 80, 97, 118 f., 123, 143-146, 180, 198, 200, 222, 259, 267 f., 288, 323, 354, 367, 374, 376, 387 Portugal 6, 195, 311 f., 314, 317 f., 320 f., 410 registration fee 233, 413 research funding 47, 83, 97, 250 f., 254, 289, 293, 374, 386, 388, 390, 398 Spain 6, 156, 195, 318, 325-327, 333, 336-338 Sweden 6, 95, 103, 105, 108 f., 127, 156, 168, 232, 341-352, 354-358, 402, 410 Switzerland 6, 255, 361-363, 365, 369, 372-378, 410 Teaching Anthropology 82, 147, 149, 153, 203, 207, 209, 230, 270, 284, 286, 317, 366, 371 Area Studies 148-151, 371, 374,

Index 376, 384 Comparative Political Science 51 Comparative Politics 52, 63 f., 80, 82 f., 92 f., 95, 119, 143-145, 149 f., 152, 156, 159, 167, 171, 175, 180, 234, 236, 250, 259, 264, 268, 277, 286 f., 296, 299, 302 f., 320, 323, 329 f., 335, 342, 354 f., 365-370, 373 f., 376, 385, 386 Computer Science 82 Constitutional Law 117, 146, 196, 212, 214, 244, 255, 311, 314 f., 329, 332, 341, 344, 354, 365 Development Studies 96, 179, 235, 249, 254, 370 f., 376, 385 Diplomacy 120, 207 f., 214, 235, 287, 317 Economics 43, 47, 49, 66, 81 f., 87, 92 f., 109-111, 118, 128, 138 f., 147 f., 153, 159, 169, 171, 199, 201, 206 f., 209, 220, 226, 229, 231 f., 234, 239, 253, 261 f., 264, 286, 315-319, 327, 332, 334, 348, 361, 367, 369 f., 372, 381, 387, 389 f., 397, 402, 409 f. Environmental Policy 149 European Politics 52, 147, 149151, 179 f., 250, 252, 286, 368, 374, 414 Gender Studies 52, 111, 122, 179 f., 366, 385 History 50, 58, 66, 80, 92, 94, 110 f., 122, 138, 140, 142, 147 f., 153, 157, 159, 163, 178 f., 190, 199-201, 206-209, 212, 220, 225, 235, 244, 247 f., 259, 261, 271, 276, 284, 286, 295, 305, 317, 327, 329, 341, 361, 365 f., 367, 370, 383, 395, 397, 404, 409, 410 History of Political Ideas 286, 311, 342 f., 354 International Relations 11, 51 f., 62-65, 68, 70, 77, 80, 82 f., 92, 95 f., 98, 104 f., 110-112, 114, 116, 119 f., 122 f., 128, 142-147, 149, 155 f., 159, 167, 171, 175 f.,

Index 179-181, 200 f., 207, 209, 212, 214, 216, 222 f., 230, 234 f., 240, 249 f., 252, 254, 259, 264 f., 268, 276, 286 f., 289, 291, 296, 302 f., 318-323, 329 f., 332, 354, 363, 365, 366-376, 378, 384 f., 390, 392 f., 396 f., 406, 411-413 Local Government 95, 109 f., 113, 230, 264, 306, 330, 354, 358, 385, 397 Methods 63, 65, 118 f., 123, 149, 157, 167, 175 f., 354, 366-369, 373, 384 f. National Politics 150 Peace and Conflict Studies 120, 122 Political Analysis 179, 207, 330, 332 Political Behaviour 95, 175, 179, 286, 296, 303, 365, 373-376, 385 Political Economy 52, 79, 143145, 150, 156, 175, 178, 222 f., 255, 264, 286, 329, 365, 369371, 373, 385, 390, 396, 404, 411 Political History 58, 63, 93, 143145, 208, 222, 255, 264, 286 Political Institutions 94, 149-151 Political Philosophy 51, 143-145, 374, 376, 385 Political Sociology 149-151, 198 Political System 51, 83, 118, 175, 377 Political Theory 51 f., 77, 80-82, 92 f., 95 f., 123, 142-146, 167, 171, 175, 180, 200, 207, 214, 222, 234, 250, 252, 259, 264, 267, 286 f., 303, 329 f., 332, 337,

427 343, 354 f., 365-370, 373 f., 376, 385, 412 Public Administration 45, 64 f., 67-70, 90, 92 f.93, 95 f., 98, 101, 104, 108-114, 124, 128, 137, 180, 185, 201, 205, 207-209, 215, 217 f., 222, 230-238, 240, 245, 247, 252, 259, 265, 268, 270, 276-279, 282-284, 286290, 292 f., 296 f., 299, 302-307, 320-323, 329 f., 332, 336 f., 354 f., 362, 365, 371, 374, 376, 381, 383, 385, 397, 406, 411 Public Law 57, 63, 92 f., 111, 195 f., 200-202, 212, 220, 295, 315, 330, 332, 361, 410 Public Policy 149-151, 180, 374 Social Psychology 200, 212, 366 Sociology 49, 58, 62, 65-67, 70, 80, 82, 93, 111, 138, 140, 142151, 153, 157-159, 175, 179181, 199-201, 203, 206-208, 211, 214, 222, 230, 234, 240, 245, 247, 253, 257-259, 261264, 270, 276, 279, 286, 296, 314-319, 321, 323, 325, 327329, 332, 335, 364-367, 371, 385, 387, 402, 404, 410 Statistics 63, 82, 92 f., 117, 164, 175 f., 230, 234 f., 261, 269, 329, 343, 404 textbooks 51, 83, 93, 214 f., 223, 234, 250, 252 f., 265, 268 The Netherlands 6, 275 f., 277-282, 284-292, 397, 410 United Kingdom 156, 357, 381-386, 388 f., 391-394, 396 f., 404, 406, 410, 423, 424

Authors Erna M. Appelt is Professor of Political Science at Innsbruck University. She has also taught at the universities of Vienna, Marburg, New Orleans, and Graz. Since 2005 she directs the University of Innsbruck’s interdisciplinary research programme on “Gender: Identities – Discourses – Transformations”. Major research interests are in the areas of gender, democracy, and the European Union. She has widely published in the fields of gender research and theory of democracy. Anne-Sylvie Berck is currently research assistant at the Catholic University of Louvain. Her main research interest is comparative politics and she actually works on a PhD thesis on a comparative analysis of reunification processes with a special emphasis to application in the Korean Peninsula. Dirk Berg-Schlosser is currently professor at the Institute of Political Science, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany. He has done research and taught at the universities of Munich, Aachen, Augsburg, Eichstaett, Nairobi, Stellenbosch/South Africa, Berkeley, and Marburg. He has been a member of the Executive Committee of the European Consortium for Political Research (20002006), and chair of ECPR (2003-2006). Since 2003 he has been a member of the Executive Committee of the International Politcal Science Association (IPSA) and is currently vice-president of IPSA. His research interests include political culture research, empirical democratic theory, Third World studies, comparative politics, comparative methodology. Recent major publications are: Political Stability and Development (with Rainer Siegler); Political Culture in Germany (with Ralf Rytlewski); Literaturführer Politikwissenschaft (with Sven Quenter); Empirische Demokratieforschung; Perspektiven der Demokratie (with H. J. Giegel); Armut und Demokratie (with Norbert Kersting); Conditions of Democracy in Europe 1919-39, 2 vols. (with Jeremy Mitchell); Perspectives of Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe (with Raivo Vetik); Democratizatíon − the State of the Art. Sten Berglund is Professor of Political Science at the University of Örebro, Sweden, and Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. His previous publications include The New Democracies in Eastern Europe: Party Systems and Political Cleavages (with Jan Åke Dellenbrant, eds., Edward Elgar 1991 and 1994), The Political History of Eastern Europe in the 20th Century (with Frank Aarebrot, Edward Elgar 1997), The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe (with Tomas Hellén and Frank Aarebrot, eds., Edward Elgar 1998), Challenges to Democracy: Eastern Europe Ten Years after the Collapse of Communism (with Frank Aarebrot, Henri Vogt and Georgi Karasimeonov, Edward Elgar 2001), Baltic Democracy at the Crossroads: An Elite Perspective (with Kjetil Duvold, eds., Norwegian Academic Press 2003), The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, Second Edition (with Joakim Ekman and Frank H. Aarebrot, eds., Edward Elgar 2004), and The Making of the European Union: Foundations, Institutions and Future Trends (with Joakim Ekman, Henri Vogt & Frank H. Aarebrot, Edward Elgar 2006).

430

Authors

Erkki Berndtson is Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Helsinki. He was President of the Finnish Political Science Association (1995-99) and Editor-in-Chief of the Association’s journal, Politiikka (1985-86). His research interests include history of political science, politics of higher education, democratic theory and politics of public space. His latest publication is Mobile Europe. Improving Faculty and Student Mobility Conditions in Europe (editor, epsNet 2005). Loïc Blondiaux is Professor of Political Science, Science Po Lille. Currently, he is research fellow at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifiques (CERAPS/ Lille II). In the last years, he taught at the University of Paris I (PanthéonSorbonne) and the University of Montréal. He has been President of the French Association des Enseignants et Chercheurs en Science Politique (AECSP). Among his publications are La Fabrique de l’opinion. Une histoire sociale des sondages (1998), La Démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et espace public (1999 with G. Marcou et F. Rangeon eds.) and Démocratie et délibération (2002, with Yves Sintomer eds.). Marleen Brans holds degrees from the universities of Leuven (MA), Hull (MA), and Florence (PhD European University Institute). She is Associate Professor at the Public Management Institute of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, where she teaches public administration, policy analysis, and comparative public policy. She has published refereed journal articles and chapters in edited volumes on local government reform, civil service systems, comparative public administration, and policy work of civil servants. Her current research interests include policymaking reform, the relation between science and policy-making, and financial rewards for public office. John Coakley is Director of the Institute for British-Irish Studies and Associate Professor of Politics at University College Dublin. He is a former Secretary General of the International Political Science Association, and former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington. He is the author of many articles on comparative politics, ethnic conflict and nationalism, and has recently edited or co-edited The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict (2nd ed., Frank Cass, 2003), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (4th ed., Routledge, 2004), and Renovation or revolution? New territorial politics in Ireland and the United Kingdom (UCD Press, 2005). George Contogeorgis is Professor of Political Science, Panteion University of Athens and Master in European Studies, University of Siena. PhD (Doctorat d’Etat), University of Paris. Former Rector, Panteion University. Founding Member and First Secretary-General, Hellenic Political Science Association. Former Member, Higher Council and Research Council, European University Institute in Florence. He has taught at numerous Universities (IEP Paris, Montpellier, ULB, UCL, Tokyo, Quebec). President-General Director, Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. Interim Minister in Communication and Media. Among his publications are: The Theory of Revolution in Aristotle (1978); The Hellenic ‘City-States’ under Ottoman Rule (1982); Political System and Politics (1985); A History of Greece (1992); The Science of Politics: A Cosmosystemic Approach to the Political Phenomenon (1999); Modernity and Progress (2001); Political Culture in Greece

Authors

431

(2003); The Authoritarian Phenomenon (2003); Democracy as Freedom (2004); Citizenship and State. Concept and Typology of Citizenship (2004). The Hellenic Cosmosystem (2006). Yves Déloye is Professor of Political Science at the University of Paris I, PanthéonSorbonne and at present General Secretary of the AFSP (Association Française de Science Politique). Specialist of historical sociology, he has recently published: Les Voix de Dieu. Pour une autre histoire du suffrage électoral: le clergé catholique français et le vote XIXe-XXe siècle (Paris, Fayard, 2006). Karolien Dezeure holds Master degrees in political science (KUL) and social policy analysis (by Luxembourg, Leuven and Associate Institutes). She is a research assistant at the Public Management Institute of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). Her current research interests include policy implementation and evaluation especially in the field of social policy. Joakim Ekman holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Örebro, Sweden. His works include National Identity in Divided and Unified Germany (doctoral thesis, 2001), The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, Second Edition (with Sten Berglund and Frank H. Aarebrot, eds., Edward Elgar 2004), and The Making of the European Union: Foundations, Institutions and Future Trends (with Sten Berglund, Henri Vogt & Frank H. Aarebrot, Edward Elgar 2006). His writings have also appeared in the European Journal of Political Research, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. John Etherington is a lecturer at the Department of Political Science and Public Law at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His research interests centre on nationalism, nationalist politics in Catalonia and territorial governance. Giorgio Freddi is Professor of Politics and Administration, Dipartimento di Organizzazione e Sistema Politico, University of Bologna. PhD in Political Science (Berkeley), he has written extensively on such subjects as comparative bureaucracy, judicial behavior, institutional functioning, and the public policies of health care and environmental protection. Former Chair of the European Consortium for Political Research and of the Italian Society of Political Science, he is now the coordinator of an international joint research venture, centered on the comparative study of new forms of democracy, involving the University of Bologna and the University of California (Berkeley, Irvine and UCLA). Nicolas Freymond is lecturer at the University of Lausanne, Institute of Political and International Studies. He currently works on a PhD Dissertation on the legal expertise in state reform processes. André-Paul Frognier is currently Professor of Political Science at the Catholic University of Louvain, specializing in comparative politics and elections studies. He was also invited Professor at several other universities, a.o. IEP of Paris, Lille, Bordeaux, University of Lausanne, EUI of Firenze, University of Silesia in Katowice. His main research interests are electoral research and relations between national identities and European identity. He is author or co-author of several books and articles on these topics. Paul Furlong is Professor of European Studies and head of School of European Studies at Cardiff University. He previously had academic posts at the Universities of

432

Authors

Hull and Birmingham, and has published widely both on Italian Politics and on political science methodology. Among his recent work are “Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science” (with D Marsh) in D. Marsh and G. Stoker, Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2002, and “British Higher Education and the Bologna Process: an interim assessment”, Politics February 2005. Daniela Giannetti is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Bologna. Her research interests are in the field of rational choice theory and comparative politics. She published several articles on coalition formation and an introduction to rational choice approaches to politics, Teoria politica positive. Bologna. Il Mulino. 2003. Michael Goldsmith, AcSS, is Emeritus Professor at the University of Salford, UK. He is a lifetime Vice President of the UK Political Studies Association. He has taught and researched in the field of comparative urban politics and local government for over 40 years and is author or editor of several books in the field. Wyn Grant is Professor of Politics at the University of Warwick. He was chair of the Political Studies Association of the UK 2002-2005 and its president from 2005. He was president of the British Politics Group of the American Political Science Association, 2004-2006 and is a member of the Fachbeirat of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, Germany. He was elected to the executive committee of the International Political Science Association in 2006. He has published extensively in the area of comparative public policy, e.g., (with William Coleman and Tim Josling), Agriculture in the New Global Economy (2004). Tore Hansen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Oslo. He is currently also linked to the Norwegian Institute of Urban and Regional Research. His research has focused on local politics and policy, and public finance and budgeting. His publications include – among others – ”Budgetary Strategies and Success at Multiple Decision Levels in the Norwegian Urban Setting”, (in American Political Science Review, with Andrew T. Cowart and Karl Erik Brofoss, 1975), “Det kommunale hamskifte” (with Francesco Kjellberg, 1979), “Offentlige budsjettprosesser” (ed., 1985), “Territorielle fordelinger og bykommunale finanser” (1986), “Borgere, tjenesteytere og beslutningstakere” (ed. with Audun Offerdal, 1995), ”Stortinget som lokalpolitisk aktør” (with Sissel Hovik and Jan Erling Klausen, 2000). Ólafur Th. Hardarson is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Iceland. He obtained his BA degree from the University of Iceland, and his MSc and PhD from London School of Economics and Political Science. Since 1983, he has been Director of the Icelandic National Election Studies Program. His publications include Parties and Voters in Iceland (1995), “The Icelandic Electoral System 1844-1999” in Grofman and Lijphart (eds.) The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries (2002), and various articles in European Journal of Political Research and Electoral Studies. Hans-Dieter Klingemann is Professor emeritus of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Currently, he serves as Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, Uni-

Authors

433

versity of California, Irvine, USA, and at the Centre d’Études Européennes, Sciences Po, Paris, France. Among his publications are A New Handbook of Political Science (1996, with Robert E. Goodin, eds.), Mapping Policy Preferences I and II (2001, 2006 with Ian Budge et al.), and Democracy and Political Culture in Eastern Europe (2006, with Dieter Fuchs and Jan Zielonka, eds.). Michael Laver is Professor of Politics at New York University. Previously, he spent ten years as Professor of Political Science and Sociology at University College Galway, followed by eleven years as Professor of Political Science at Trinity College Dublin. He is a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and has coedited the journals Irish Political Studies and the European Journal of Political Research. Adriano Moreira is Professor emeritus of Political Science and International Relations, Technical University of Lisbon. Currently, he serves as visiting Professor at the Portuguese Catholic University, the Open University of Lisbon and the Portuguese Navy Institute of War. Recently, he published the 5th edition of his International Relations Theory (Almedina, Coimbra, 2005) and the 3rd edition of his Political Science (Almedina, Coimbra, 2006). Adriano Moreira is President of the Portuguese Culture International Academy. Mogens N. Pedersen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern Denmark at Odense. He has published widely in the fields of legislative behaviour, political elite recruitment, parties and party systems, local politics, and methodology. Among his publications are Kampen om Kommunen (co-editor J. Elklit, 1995), Leksikon i statskundskab (co-editors K. Goldman & Ø.Østerud, 1997), Party Sovereignty and Citizen Control (co-editors Hanne-Marthe Narud & Henry Valen, 2002), and De danske folketingsmedlemmer – en parlamentarisk elite og dens rekruttering, circulation og transformation 18449-2001 (co-author Ulrik Kjaer, 2004). Christophe Platel is lecturer at the University of Lausanne, within the Institute of Political and International Studies. He currently works on a PhD Dissertation on the constitutional review in Switzerland. Johannes Pollak is “Privatdozent” (assistant professor), Paris-Lodron University Salzburg and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. Among his recent publications are Repräsentation ohne Demokratie? Kollidierende Modi der Repräsentation in der EU (Representation without Democracy. Colliding Forms of Representation in the EU, 2006), Contested meanings of representation. (Journal for Comparative Politics, special issue, edited by Antje Wiener, 2006). He is currently editing a five-volume series (Europa Kompakt) on European Union politics. Jean-Louis Quermonne is Professor emeritus of Political Science, Sciences-Po Grenoble and Paris. He served as a president of the French Political Science Association. Currently he is a board member of the Association “Notre Europe”. Among his publications are: La Ve République (2000, with Dominique Chagnollaud, Champs, Flammarion), Le système politique de l’Union Européenne (2005, Clefs, Montchrétien, 6e éd.), Les regimes politiques occidentaux (2006, Le Seuil, Points, 5e éd.), and L’Alternance au pouvoir (2003, Clefs, Montchréstien).

434

Authors

Bob Reinalda is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Department of Political Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Among his publications are Non-State Actors in International Relations (2001, with Bas Arts and Math Noortmann, eds.), Decision Making within International Organizations (2004, with Bertjan Verbeek, eds.) and The Bologna Process, Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education (2005, with Ewa Kulesza). Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer is Professor of Government and Policy Research at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. She is editor-in-chief of the “Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen”, President of the German Political Science Association (DVPW) and Vice-President of epsNet. Previous positions include: Professor of German Government at the University of Potsdam, Steven Muller Chair of German Studies at the Bologna Center of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. She is also a member of the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes and was the 1999 winner of the Wissenschaftspreis des Deutschen Bundestages (Award of the Bundestag for Academic Achievement). She has published widely on the Bundestag, the German political system as well as on representation and government. Richard Topf is Professor of Political Science at London Metropolitan University, and Director of the Centre for Comparative European Survey Data. He is President of the European Political Science Network, and a member of the Web Editorial Board of the International Political Science Association. He is also Electronic Publications Editor and a member of the Executive Committee of the Political Studies Association of the UK, and of the Executive Committee of the British International Studies Association. Topf’s recent research has focused on the interface of informatics and social science, as illustrated by http://www.ccesd.ac.uk. Bernard Voutat is associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Lausanne, Institute of Political and International Studies. In relation with the history and sociology of political science, he published La science politique suisse à l’épreuve de son histoire. Genèse, émergence et perspectives d’une discipline scientifique (2000, with Philippe Gottraux and Pierre-Antoine Schorderet) and Faire de la science politique. Pour une analyse socio-historique du politique (2002, with Yves Déloye). Lieven De Winter is Professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain la Neuve and at the Katholieke Universiteit Brussel. He directs the Centre de Politique Comparée at the UCL. Amongst his publications are Non-state-wide parties in Europe, (ed., 1994), Regionalist Parties in Western Europe (1998, co-editor with H. Tûrsan), and Autonomist Parties in Western Europe (2006, co-editor with M. Gomez and P. Lynch). In process is an edited book on Belgian Politics and one on Coalition Formation. He is author of numerous journal articles and book chapters on comparing political parties, legislatures and cabinets, and Belgian politics.

The World of Political Science – The Development of the Discipline Book Series Edited by Michael Stein and John Trent The book series aims at going beyond the traditional “state-of-the-art review” and wants to make a major contribution not just to the description of the state of the discipline, but also to an explanation of its development and content. Harald Baldersheim & Hellmut Wollmann (eds.) The Comparative Study of Local Government and Politics Overview and Synthesis 2006. 140 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-86649-034-8 The book provides a the state-of-the-art of local government studies, with an emphasis on contributions by political science. Particular attention is paid to the development of the research agenda in the field, of which a potential future development is outlined. Dirk Berg-Schlosser (ed.) Democratization—The state of the art 2004. 160 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-86649-061-5 Problems of democratization, its successes, failures and future prospects, belong to the most pressing concerns of our times. In this volume the "state of the art" in this respect is discussed by leading international experts in this field including Laurence Whitehead, Gerardo Munck, Axel Hadenius and Juan Linz. David Coen & Wyn Grant (eds.) Business and Government Methods and Practice 2006. 127 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-86649-033-X This volume reviews current debates on the role of business in politics and it assesses emerging methodological approaches to its study.

Rainer Eisfeld (ed.) Pluralism Developments in the Theory and Practice of Democracy 2006. 128 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-86649-028-3 The book focuses on the study of democratic processes. Special emphasis is put (1) on the existence of a diversity of (e. g. socio-economic, ethno-cultural) interests and the transformation of this diversity into public policies, (2) on the participatory features of democracy and on barriers to individual and group participation due to disparities in economic and political resources. R.B. Jain (ed.) Governing development across cultures Challenges and dilemmas of an emerging sub-discipline in political science 2006. 282 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-96649-029-1 The book is a critical examination and appraisal of the status, methodology and likely future of the emerging sub-discipline of “Governing Development” within the broader discipline of political science. Linda Shepherd (ed.) Political Psychology 2006. 168 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-86649-027-5 The book provides detailed information about the development of the field of political psychology, a subfield of both political science and psychology. It describes the evolution of concepts and theories within political psychology, international influences in the field, current concepts and methodology, and trends that augur for the future of the enterprise. Further volumes in preparation. www.budrich-verlag.de • www.barbara-budrich.net

Transformation Research Initiative Ursula J. van Beek (ed.) Democracy under Construction: Patterns from Four Continents 2005. 500 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-938094-23-0 Hc. ISBN 3-938094-24-9 The book compares five newly emerged democracies in Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and Africa. Cutting across vastly different historical and cultural backgrounds it tells the story of how societies come to terms with a painful past and how politics, culture and the economy intertwine in the process of creating new democratic nations. The volume pioneers a new approach to the study of democratisation. It does so by combining comparative and interdisciplinary analyses of South Africa, Poland, (East) Germany, South Korea and Chile, that is, five countries where a similar general thrust of democratisation is set against the most diversified cultural and historical backgrounds. The editor: Prof. Ursula J. van Beek: Transformation Research Initiative (TRI), Stellenbosch University, South Africa. The authors: Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Faculty of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany ● Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, France ● Jörn Rüsen, Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut, Essen, Germany ● Susanne Fuchs, Department of Sociology, New School University, USA ● Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski, Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland ● Radek Markowski, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland ● Marek Ziolkowski, Sociology Department, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland ● Philip Mohr, Department of Economics, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa ● Hennie Kotze, Faculty of Arts, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa ● Bernard Lategan, Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), South Africa ● Prof. Pierre du Toit, Department of Political Science, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa ● Jorge Heine, Ambassador of Chile to India.

www.budrich-verlag.de • www.barbara-budrich.net

Gender & Gender Politics Ralf Puchert Marc Gärtner Stephan Höyng (eds.) Work Changes Gender Men and Equality in the Transition of Labour Forms Preface by Michael Kimmel 2nd edition 2006. 202 pp. Paperback. ISBN 3-86649-040-2 Hardcover. ISBN 3-86649-041-0 Changes in the work sphere and the "vanishing" of standard work may end the old breadwinner type of masculinity. But where "new men" try to balance work and life or show caring activities, they face obstacles - i.e. in organisations or on playgrounds. The book explains the ongoing changes in detail, shows ways how men deal with them and gives recommendations how to achieve gender equality by including a perspective on men.

Verena Schmidt Gender Mainstreaming — an Innovation in Europe? The Institutionalisation of Gender Mainstreaming in the European Commission Preface by Ilse Lenz 2005. 271 pp. Pb. ISBN 3-938094-28-1 Hc. ISBN 3-938094-29-X This book provides an in-depth study into the construction and implementation of gender mainstreaming in the European Commission. It is founded in organisation sociology and European integration research. Gender studies are pursued as an integral perspective. This is in contrast to existing publications on gender mainstreaming. Many have been commissioned by governments or government agencies and produced under enormous time pressure. They are often limited to best practice studies with 'best practice' actually meaning any element of gender mainstreaming practice, as the implementation of gender mainstreaming in most Member States remains very limited.

www.budrich-verlag.de • www.barbara-budrich.net

United Nations John E. Trent Modernizing the United Nations System From International Relations to Global Governance With the assistance of Monika Rahman 2006. Approx. 250 pp. Pb. Ca. 24,90 € , US$28.90 ISBN 3-86649-003-8 Modernizing the United Nations system is necessary to deal with the anarchy of Globalization. After reviewing global change and the many proposals for UN reform, the book shows how international civil society may be the only force that can provide the momentum required to modernize an organization that is 50 years behind the times. This book contends that civil society must mobilize its capacities to bring a new will to national and international politics and oblige governments to act. It starts by demonstrating the need for institutional change at the UN and then shows how, both in the past and the present, leading individuals and nongovernmental organizations, using their knowledge base and their organizational networks, have lead the fight for international organizations. After a summary of major UN reform proposals over the years, the book concludes by identifying leading global “reformers” and elaborating a detailed plan for a global reform movement to spearhead the modernization of the UN system. At your local bookstore or contact

Stauffenbergstr. 7. D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen • Tel +49 (0)2171.344.594 • Fax +49 (0)2171.344.693 • [email protected] North American distribution: International Specialized Book Services 920 NE 58th Ave., suite 300 • Portland, OR 97213-3786 • USA phone toll-free within North America 1-800-944-6190, fax 1-503-280-8832 •[email protected]

www.budrich-verlag.de • www.barbara-budrich.net

Politics

Daniela Grunow Convergence, Persistence and Diversity in Male and Female Careers A Comparison of Gendered Employment Mobility Patterns in West Germany and Denmark 2006. 250 pp. Pb 24,90 € (D), 25,60 € (A), 43,70 SFr, US$28.90 ISBN 978-3-938094-90-7

Bob Reinalda Ewa Kulesza The Bologna Process— Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education Including the Essential Original Texts Foreword by Hans-Dieter Klingemann nd 2 edition 2006. XIV + 230 pp. Pb 19,90 € (D), 20,50 € (A), 34,90 SFr, US$23.95 Gerd Meyer (ed.) ISBN 978-3-86649-042-0 Formal Institutions and Informal Hc 48,00 € (D), 49,40 € (A), Politics in Central and 82,70 SFr, US$49.90 Eastern Europe Hungary, Poland, Russia and Ukraine ISBN 978-3-86649-043-7 2006. 329 pp. Hc. 59.00 € (D), 60.70 € (A), 100,00 SFr, US$69.00 ISBN 978-3-86649-060-4

Head-office: Stauffenbergstr. 7 • D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen • Germany Tel +49 (0)2171.344.594 • Fax +49 (0)2171.344.693 • [email protected] US-office: 28347 Ridgebrook • Farmington Hills, MI 48334 • USA • [email protected] Northamerican distribution: International Specialized Book Services 920 NE 58th Ave., suite 300 • Portland, OR 97213-3786 • USA toll-free within North America ph 1-800-944-6190, fax 1-503-280-8832 • [email protected]

www.budrich-verlag.de • www.barbara-budrich.net