The article introduces a discussion on approaches to the history of political thought based on a panel at the ECPR General Conference in Potsdam, 2009. After reconstructing the three classic approaches, the Cambridge School, the ‘Begriffsgeschichte’, and Foucault's Genealogy as well as more recent developments in the field, the authors outline a scheme for further methodological and comparative research. They also emphasise the importance of historical approaches for political theory and political science.

By looking at political thought in historical periods that mirror our own, we can discern patterns of thought which clairvoyantly recognise the new and fearfully retreat to established patterns of thought. Sixteenth-century thought confronts us with the search for newly emerging political orders. Focusing on four thinkers, this paper explicates the emerging pattern. It reflects on the contemporary relevance of sixteenth-century thought and the relevance of the history of ideas.

The Cambridge School has been remarkably successful in its attempt to grasp the character of political thought in the early modern period on the basis of historical data, rather than quasi-philosophical speculations. At the same time, it is questionable whether its research approach is suited to the study of later political thought. Still, the article argues, these difficulties are not insurmountable, and the Cambridge School can indeed serve as a model for historians of modern political thought.

In traditional approaches to the history of political ideas, the history of democracy is uniformly studied concerning the point of departure, selection of canonical texts, etc. The paper introduces the Koselleckian conceptual history approach (Begriffsgeschichte) and the principle of a broader selection of texts than in the traditional history of ideas to provide a fuller account of usages of the concept, thereby opening up for alternative conceptions of the inventions and development of democracy.

Political scientists have discussed relations between fictional and non-fictional texts in different ways. None of the perspectives so far provide methodological tools for integrating fictional literature into an already established political-theoretical debate, which is part of the canon of political thought. This article presents a ‘textual cooperation’ of state theory and fiction, by examining Kelsen's and Schmitt's conceptions of state transformation and expanding these concepts via analysis of two novels by Joseph Roth: The Spider's Web and Rebellion. Fiction contributes to a theoretical debate by illuminating blind spots of theoretical concepts and clarifying some ambiguities with a plausible narrative of what could be in the world.

This paper is concerned with the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in constituting European post-national citizenships. The central argument is that the Europeanisation of rights, and the administrative regulation of higher education that follows from this, are limited as instruments for developing post-national citizenship as they reinforce and conceal social and cultural divisions. An individualist and organisational conception of citizenship is contrasted with the possibilities for a post-national citizenship enacted within HEIs considered as significant political actors within a broadly conceived European public sphere.

What is the institutional legacy of Katzenstein's 1985 work on international relations theorizing? This article places Small States in World Markets in the history of the study of power. Katzenstein's contribution endures by identifying the relationship between changes in the world economy and the capacity of states to adapt. His 1985 book opened up new paths of theorizing – from the role of norms to the ways in which smaller political economies in Europe can inform the large. Even though the issue-areas, actors, and measures of power and authority evolve, Katzenstein's analysis remains a critical benchmark for institutional/IR analysis.

Katzenstein's contribution to European political theory continues to resonate – even though the shift in scholarly work has moved in new directions, and the capacity for ‘flexible adaptation’ is under duress. When questions of power in the global system arise, the approach can account for issue-areas unanticipated by the author when the theoretical framework was introduced. Small States in World Markets still maintains a position on our reading lists, as a baseline for theory integrating comparative and international politics.

Small States in World Markets is about political efficacy and legitimation rather than scoring who is ahead in the economic sweepstakes. Its case for democratic corporatism rests on norms, particularly stability, rather than on narrow measures of economic efficiency. But stability, and the efficacious management of the economy and social problems requires a degree of technocracy that undermines the legitimacy of the management process itself by helping to produce populist revolts.

Iceland's neo-liberal laboratory ended in economic crash and political chaos. The business-oriented sectoral corporatist structure in Iceland created an ideal framework for the neo-liberal agenda. A comprehensive democratic corporatist framework, including the conditions for economic flexibility and political stability, was missing. The culture of consensus did not prevail. The paper shows how Iceland does not fit Katzenstein's theory. At the same time, the case of Iceland shows the value of the corporatist model in analyzing the process of change in a small society and its successes and failures.

This talk attempts to explain Europe's peacefulness since the Berlin Wall fell. The core argument is that this tranquility is mainly because of Europe's relationship with the United States, which has changed little since the Cold War ended. America continues to act as Europe's pacifier by keeping substantial military forces in the region. Moreover, many European countries have been helping the United States police the globe, which focuses their attention outward, not on each other.

This article examines the competences required for a career in scientific policy consultancy (especially in the field of foreign policy) in Germany and the extent to which university education in the field of political science can and does prepare for this occupation. Our analysis indicates that both university education and on-the-job training are equally important for such a career. Among the broad competences, ‘analytical skills’ and ‘expertise/know-how and experience’ are regarded as more important than ‘communication skills’ and ‘customer focus’. We have found that political consultants would prefer university programmes to include more practical elements, including a greater degree of involvement of policy-makers, and more integrated internships and innovative forms of studying such as role play and the drafting of policy papers. When comparing these findings with the university programmes offered, an ambiguous picture emerges. On the one hand, it is clear that most universities are making a concerted effort to offer new innovative programmes and to meet the challenges of the Bologna process. On the other hand, traditional perceptions and methodologies of university education have been preserved. There thus seems to be a certain gap between ambition and implementation. The article limits itself to analysing the German case but nevertheless aims at encouraging a European-wide debate about political science programmes and scientific political consulting.

Writing a journal article is different from writing a book. After reviewing the literature and describing methods, there is only limited space in an article for saying something fresh. By contrast, a book provides ample space for dealing with both context and concepts. This article illustrates the difference from the author's own experience of publishing both books and peer-reviewed articles.

There are many advantages in establishing National Ph.D. programmes, but so are the challenges in getting them in motion. These challenges are caused by the intensified competition between departmental Ph.D. programmes, which is a product of the emergence of the audit society. The Danish national political science programme POLFORSK has managed to deal with these difficulties and has established a very successful programme that raises the quality of the Ph.D. programmes in Denmark considerably. This has been possible due to governmental funding that has helped to transform the relationship between national and departmental programmes into a positive-sum game, and paved the way for a systematic provision of highly specialised courses with a strong international profile that serve as a valuable supplement to the more basic Ph.D. courses provided by the individual departments.