The rise of populist radical right parties (PRRP) in Europe has led to an unprecedented number of publications focused on this phenomenon. While many of these studies analyse the causes of this rise, much less attention has been paid to its effects. Previous research has shown the success of their xenophobic arguments in conditioning the public debate. However, to what degree public opinion has normalised this discourse remains unclear. This study aims to address whether the electoral success of the PRRP leads to changes in anti-immigration attitudes across twenty-one European countries. Although the previous analysis confirms that the presence of these parties has increased significantly, examining data from European Social Survey (ESS), the results reveal two key findings: a shift towards a more favourable perception of immigration among some sectors of the population and a limited effect of the contextual factors, including the presence of the PRRP.

The relationship between party system fragmentation and voter turnout is a long-standing phenomenon, the form of which has not yet been precisely defined. Using data from the Round 10 of European Social Survey (2020–2022), this article attempts to investigate the relationship across European democracies. Consistently with previous research, association between party system fragmentation as well as increase in number of parties between elections and turnout seems to be negative but rather weak. However, as could be expected based on a rational choice theory and cognitive overload, the effect depends on several individual and context level characteristics. The results suggest that negative effect of fragmentation may be attenuated by a high degree of partisanship. On the other hand, it may be strengthened in the context of an unanchored party system, as demonstrated in the case of Eastern and Central Europe compared to Western Europe, or by lower levels of political polarization.

The decision whether to index government benefits can have significant economic and political implications. It can affect whether or to what extent benefits maintain their real value over time, affect the policy levers available to fight inflation, and shape discretionary budget priorities. Most of the attention in the literature has focused on understanding the economic pros and cons of indexing and the politics and political use of indexation in the context of welfare state reform and retrenchment. Less attention has been paid to what indexation means for democratic accountability. This paper seeks to rectify this by investigating the democratic stakes of indexing government benefits. It argues that there are, other things being equal, strong democratic reasons to index government benefits in a way (or according to metric) that preserves their publicly articulated purpose. However, concerns about lack of discretion and ownership suggest indexation rules should be designed to provide governments with some discretionary power over the size and perhaps timing of automatic adjustments—though accompanied by requirements that the exercise of this discretionary power be justified publicly.

The question ‘What is Politics and International Relations?’ often goes unasked, potentially leading to varied interpretations across universities. The review of the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) Subject Benchmark Statement for Politics and International Relations in early 2022 provided a key moment to define the discipline. For over three decades, benchmark statements have been crucial in the UK higher education, guiding learning assurance and disciplinary self-definition. Despite their significance, the development process and impact of these benchmarks at a disciplinary level are underexplored. This article explores the history, development and influence of benchmark statements on Politics and International Relations, illustrating how they balance commonalities and differences across the UK institutions. It addresses concerns about the potential restrictiveness of these benchmarks and emphasises their voluntary nature. Through insights from four members of the Subject Benchmark Statement advisory group, the article aims to provide a thorough understanding of how benchmark statements shape and reflect the evolving landscape of the teaching of Politics and International Relations.

The 60th anniversary of the Department of Government at the University of Essex provides an opportunity to reflect on its many achievements and why these have been possible. This article argues that research excellence is a collective outcome that cannot be reduced to individuals. Research institutions tend to be successful because they manage to create productive environments, which can make individual scholars better and create synergies. The thesis is backed up by examples from the history of the department and more general research on the role of environments for research. The article considers possible insights with regard to present challenges to academic institutions, why productive environments can be difficult to maintain, and how we can try to nurture them.

In this article, we introduce a new dataset—the Comparative Semi-Presidential Database (CSPD)—covering classifications of semi-presidential regimes. In contrast to other databases, the CSPD offers several classifications based on different definitions of semi-presidential regimes along with subtypes of semi-presidential regimes. We use definitions developed by Elgie (in: Elgie (ed) Semi-presidentialism in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999), Cheibub et al. (Public Choice 143:67–101, 2010), Shugart (French Politics 3(3):323–351, 2005) and Shugart and Carey (Presidents and assemblies: constitutional design and electoral dynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992). Additionally, we present a modified definition of semi-presidential regimes based on the conceptual discussion in the field. The database covers all independent states from 1900 to 2021. Using empirical analyses, we compare the classifications, the importance of conceptualisation and presenting our measurement for semi-presidential regimes.

This article introduces the Debate on editing and publishing (in) Political Science and International Relations journals in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Debate brings together editors of PoliSci and IR journals published in four CEE countries to examine the practice of publishing (in) these disciplines and explore the diverse strategies journals, and their editors employ to navigate the semiperipheral context of CEE. Going beyond structuralist accounts of semiperipheral inferiority, we introduce CEE journals as institutions endowed with agency, self-reflection and responsibility towards their academic communities. The Debate discusses if and in which sense these journals try to become (limited) innovators, how they are bound by different conditions stemming from the national or regional contexts, how they work with or challenge them and which opportunities they exploit to advance their goals.

Romanian Political Science was institutionalized mostly after the fall of the communist regime. While the number of Political Science departments has declined after the 2000s, the number of journals continued to increase. We investigate this unusual pattern, focusing on the journals’ relationship with their home universities and editorial teams, and on their reaction to the opening of Romanian Political Science to the outside world. In a context characterized by low competition, lack of resources, and the absence of functioning professional associations and national conferences, the journals failed to cut across departmental boundaries and evolve into a national platform for scientific publishing. Changes in national academic standards also brought them into direct competition with international journals. Although, through internationalization, standards of scientific publishing have improved, the landscape of Romanian Political Science journals remains semiperipheral, and the national community continues to be fragmented and tribal.

The text identifies the main issues that undermine the position of the Czech Political Science and International Relations journals. We argue that structural factors such as the delayed start of the discipline, lack of contact with the international environment, the transfer of inadequate theoretical and methodological knowledge has significantly affected the functioning and development of professional journals in the Czech Republic. The authoritarian regime limited the development of the social sciences, and Czech (Slovak) Political Science endured an extremely negative attitude from the authorities. Thus, journals in the field of Political Science and International Relations were founded without deeper insight into Western practice. Furthermore, their strive to move from the scientific periphery has also been limited by the lack of human capital and financial constraints. To close the gap, which persists even today, the authors came up with a series of recommendations, such as the language of publication, topic specialisation, insisting on scientific rigour, and emphasising communication with the academic community, both domestic and international. By discussing the practice and the meaning of ‘catching up with the West,’ the paper contributes to understanding hierarchies and dependencies between the global Political Science and International Relations core and CEE as a scientific semiperiphery.

This article analyzes the path of establishment of the Journal of Regional Security (JRS), an open-access journal which was built from scratch by a group of scholars interested in security and peace in the Western Balkans. The article shows that a successful building of an International Relations journal from scratch on the semiperiphery requires not only long-term commitment with slow and uncertain payoffs but also a lot of creativity and flexibility. Initially, the article delves into the Journal’s history, situating it within broader institutional and sociopolitical contexts that have shaped its development. Subsequently, it examines how JRS has positioned itself on the semiperiphery and within the emerging global International Relations program. The third section discusses effective strategies employed by the editorial team to navigate International Relations hierarchies and rankings, emphasizing creativity, innovation, networking, and dedication to the journal’s mission. Finally, it concludes by addressing the challenges and opportunities faced by JRS, suggesting that despite being a small, independent journal operating in a semiperipheral context, it can leverage its unique position to its advantage.

The paper discusses the Polish Political Science Review as a case study of a semiperipheral scientific journal focused on political science and international relations and published by the University of Wrocław. The objective is to present the strategies adopted by the journal’s editors in a twofold context, which is critical for the journal: the international rankings and the national system of journal assessment in Poland. The paper discusses how the journal has to navigate the intersections of the requirements posed by the two systems as well as reasons why both are important. The Polish Political Science Review faces challenges typical for semiperipheral journals, building its recognisability and position on the Polish and international markets. While ensuring the high-standard quality of manuscripts is the mainstay of a journal’s strategy, functioning within the inconsistent and sometimes unpredictable environment requires a combination of internationalisation with strong local rooting.

The concluding article of this collection (Debate) summarises the preceding contributions and puts forward a scalar perspective on the position of CEE Political Science and International Relations journals. It draws attention to the interactions and tensions between international, national and local scales and discusses how journals navigate their positions on these scales. The article is structured around three questions that concern the purpose of publishing Political Science and International Relations journals in CEE, the relations of the journals with the disciplinary core and the role played by national science evaluation systems. In conclusion, the article highlights the split identity that many CEE journals have to assume due to their position on both national and international scales and the tensions stemming from the different and conflicting demands of these two scales.

Ensuring universal access to scientific research and upholding the principles of keeping data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is of paramount importance to the democratization of science. However, upholding these principles becomes increasingly complex with the increasing scope of data collection, the more different types of data we collect (e.g., survey, text, or institutional and country-level macro data), and the more research teams are involved in data collection. In the domain of democracy research, scientists across Europe are therefore joining forces to launch the research infrastructure monitoring electoral democracy (MEDem), which aims to establish itself as an open platform where the fragmented crowd of researchers in the various research fields can coordinate and develop common standards for data collection both retrospectively as well as prospectively to make their data interoperable, and (comparative) democracy research more productive. Moreover, MEDem will help make democracy research data and findings accessible to the general public (e.g., citizens, journalists, and policymakers).

This paper presents for a political science audience the Three Pillars Approach to the FAIR principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Re-usabilty for data and metadata. A portfolio of illustrative practical activities is offered that scholarly communities can take up to make their research more FAIR at disciplinary and subdisciplinary levels.

The digital age is bringing transformative changes to political science data practices and ecosystems, driven by advances in technology and a growing emphasis on FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles. This paper uses a theory of “innovation cascades” to show how building bridges to distant knowledge domains in computer and information sciences, as well as legal and ethical studies, can foster rapid and widespread adoption of more efficient and productive data practices in the discipline. Through a percolation model, I illustrate how innovation emerges and reaches tipping points when discovery and cross-disciplinary collaboration reach critical thresholds. This framework implies that the disciplinary community can proactively shape its data-future and anticipate disruptive changes that lie beyond the current imagination. The findings suggest that by enhancing connectivity across domains, political science can foster a resilient, collaborative scientific infrastructure capable of advancing both research and public engagement.

This introductory/ overview article discusses and applies the so-called ladder of recruitment to youth and their representation in parliament. The ladder includes four steps (i.e., eligible citizens, party members, candidates and legislators) with diminishing returns for youth representation at each step. I further illustrate that the literature on youth representation has mainly focused on the final stage of the ladder, the election stage, and has largely neglected the role of political parties in the recruitment and nomination of youth. This symposium rectifies this dearth of scholarship by looking at the role of youth party members, their relative power within parties and the opportunities they have to gain nomination.

The purpose of this article is to depict three ideal type models of how the youth is represented along the steps of the recruitment ladder: a. The ‘equality’ model with equal representation along the whole recruitment process, from electorate to government; b. The ‘pyramid’ model, where the higher up in the political hierarchy, the fewer young people are represented; c. The ‘hourglass’ model, where young people are better represented among voters, elected representatives, and ministers, but make up a smaller share of party/youth wing members, potential candidates, and candidates. The application of these models to the most likely to be equal Danish case reveals the fit to the hourglass model. Even if well represented in parliament, the youth is less likely to vote and enrol in a party, hence, they are missing in some of the established institutions of parliamentary democracy.

As a reaction to the COVID- 19 pandemic and the wave of global social justice protests in 2020, Generation Z (born 1997–2012)0 F feels an intensified obligation to get involved in politics, resulting in unprecedented youth activism. Gen Z is more politically active than previous generations of youth, partly due to this generation’s emergence as “digital natives.” An underlying theme motivating Gen Z activism is their affinity for addressing social justice issues through civic engagement. But do politically active young people concerned with social justice self-identify as being members of political parties? Or is their activism occurring predominantly online and in the streets? This article conducts an exploratory analysis to investigate whether youth bridge their social consciousness and activism with deliberative democracy, notably by joining political parties. By looking at youth activism and party membership across 46 countries, I find that political activism online exhibits some connection to party membership among young people. Understanding the connection between young people’s “chosen” forms of participation and formal institutions can provide insights into how online activism can break down barriers between youth and political institutions.

Political parties rely on youth wings for the political representation and mobilisation of youth. This article examines the role of youth wings within political parties; youth wing members assess the role that their organisations play in promoting youth political representation in their mother parties. Empirically, it draws on 58 semi-structured interviews with high-ranking Portuguese youth party members, comparing the perspectives in parties with and without autonomous youth wings. It assesses the role of youth wings in shaping parties' policy platforms (substantive representation); in promoting young candidates for public office (descriptive representation); and in mobilising youth to political participation. Overall, youth wings emerge as a double-edged sword. While they ensure youth representation in party bodies, they also often lead to their de facto internal segregation. In this context, youth wings' ability to influence internally, both in terms of policy and candidate selection, hinges on informal networks and negotiations with mother party leaders. Youth wings are also perceived as not being effective in mobilising youth to parties, with those who join youth wings expressing more office-seeking goals than those who join parties without these structures.

Political parties maintain connections with various sub-organisations to engage different segments of society. Common among these are party youth wings. These relationships are often described as mutual, where votes are exchanged for policies. However, little research delves into how members of these sub-organisations perceive their roles in relation to the senior party. Based on a web survey of approximately 3000 respondents, this study investigates the views of youth wing members within Swedish political parties. Specifically, it explores whether members believe their youth wing’s primary role should be to influence or support the senior party. Drawing on theories of political engagement incentives, it examines the connection between members’ political and career motivations and their perceptions of these roles. Results suggest that those with career-oriented incentives tend to view the youth wing as supportive, while politically motivated members prioritise influencing the senior party. This research contributes to our understanding of the complex dynamics within political parties and their affiliated organisations, shedding light on how individual motivations shape organisational roles.