Transformation of European Politics Podcast – Details, episodes & analysis

In this episode, I talk to Gary Marks who is Professor of Political Science at UNC-Chapel Hill. We discuss the work of Seymour Martin Lipset and focus on three main themes in Lipset’s body of work. We first discuss Lipset’s 1960 book Political Man, which includes a number of essays that have become classics of political sociology and political science more generally. Central themes of the book are the social requisites for democracy and the group bases of politics. Our second focus is on Lipset and Rokkan’s cleavage theory and the formation and transformation of party systems. In line with the main ideas of Political Man, we discuss cleavage theory as a sociological and group based approach to political competition and contrast it with the Downsian perspective. The third part of the conversation covers Gary’s joined work with Lipset that addresses the question of why there has never been a successful socialist party in the United States. The conversation goes beyond the work of Lipset alone and focuses on several main themes of political sociology as well as many political transformations of the last 100 years. If you want to know more about Gary and his work, you can visit his website. http://garymarks.web.unc.edu/ I hope you enjoy the conversation. Political science reading recommendation: Achen, Christopher/Bartels, Larry, 2016, Democracy for Realists, Princeton University Press

In this episode, I talk to Björn Bremer who is Senior Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG) in Cologne. We talk about his article “The ideational foundations of social democratic austerity in the context of the great recession” which is co-authored with Sean McDaniel and was published in the Socio-Economic Review in 2019. The article investigates the economic ideas that build the bases for the decision of social democratic parties to embrace austerity policies following the economic and financial crisis in 2008. Based on over 60 semi-structured interviews with high-profile social democratic politicians in France, the UK and Germany, the authors argue that what they call supply-side Keynesianism builds the ideational foundation for these policies. Social democratic austerity policies are thus based on a unique ideational perspective that is neither fully congruent with neo-liberal or conservative perspectives, nor can it fully be explained by structural determinants. We also discuss the largely negative consequences that embracing austerity has had for social democratic parties and the question if the economic response to the current Covid pandemic is comparable or different. If you want to know more about Björn and his research you can follow him on Twitter under at bjoern_bremer or visit his website www.bjoern-bremer.com I hope you enjoy the conversation

In this episode, I talk to Tom O’Grady who is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at University College London. We discuss his article “Careerists Versus Coal Miners: Welfare Reforms and the Substantive Representation of Social Groups in the British Labour Party” which was published in 2019 in Comparative Political Studies. https://bit.ly/3dVZ3mE In the article, Tom investigates how politicians’ social background matters for their preferences and legislative behavior. He documents how, much like in other countries, the number of MPs with a working class background has declined in the UK over the last decades. Many of them have been replaced with career politicians. The article shows that MPs with a working class background indeed have different policy preferences and behave differently in the context of welfare reform. We also discuss how British welfare politics have changed more generally. Tom’s new book project analyses how elite discourse on welfare issues has changed public opinion over the last decades. From this perspective, the frames introduced by New Labour already created the basis of public support for the austerity measures since 2010. If you want to know more about Tom and his research you can follow him on Twitter under at DrTomD_OG or visit his website tomogradypolitics.wordpress.com. I hope you enjoy the conversation Political Science recommendation: Srnicek/Williams (2016): "Inventing the Future Postcapitalism and a World Without Work" https://www.versobooks.com/books/2315-inventing-the-future?fbclid=IwAR1I8Ya9dLdEHvt-FILjAZmaAfDq969mzaLp3kxfVA96B-N0qKd6J5Pf3k0

In this episode, I talk to Phillip Ayoub who is Associate Professor at Occidental College. Our conversation focuses on his book “When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility” which was published with Cambridge University Press in 2016. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/when-states-come-out/995A1865F9062CE7B263C0C2AAD1A3EA) The book analyzes changes in LGBT rights and attitudes towards sexual minorities. It argues that norm brokers play a key role for how international norm pressure for more equality is translated into national discourse and legislation. Local activists and organizations can help frame rights expansion in a way that fits the national discourse. However, national actors in the form of religious/nationalist movements often constitute a strong antagonist to rights expansion. We discuss how the politics of queer visibility go beyond the question of same-sex marriage and what challenges lie ahead for equal recognition of sexual minorities. Especially trans rights and intersectional questions of queerness and for example racism remain strongly contested fields. While much progressive change has been achieved, many aspects of queer live remain invisible. If you want to know more about Phillip and his research you can follow him on Twitter under “at” pma34 or visit his website. https://www.phillipmayoub.com/ I hope you enjoy the conversation. Political science recommendation: Kristopher Velasco (2020): A Growing Queer Divide: The Divergence between Transnational Advocacy Networks and Foreign Aid in Diffusing LGBT Policies. International Studies Quarterly 64 (1) Pages 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz075

In this episode, I talk to Sara Hobolt who is Sutherland Chair in European Institutions at the LSE. The conversation focuses on her 2016 article “The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent” (https://bit.ly/3dp8JG0) In this article, which was published in September 2016, so shortly after the UK decided to leave the European Union, Sara investigates the individual level determinants of the Brexit vote. Next to socio-demographic characteristics such as age and education, national identities and attitudes about immigration played a core role for the decision. We then also discuss Brexit in the broader context of referendums on European integration and people’s attitudes toward the European Union more generally. Why do some people favor more integration than others? Can we imagine a similar development in other European countries? Sara and I discuss these and other questions in the next 45 minutes. If you want to know more about Sara and her research you can follow her on Twitter under “at” sarahobolt or visit her website www.hobolt.com. I hope you enjoy the conversation. Political science recommendations: https://www.cambridge.org/ch/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-economy/democratic-dilemma-can-citizens-learn-what-they-need-know?format=PB&isbn=9780521585934

In this episode, I talk to Markus Wagner, who is Professor of Quantitative Party and Election Research at the University of Vienna. Our conversation will focus on his 2014 article “Left-Authoritarians and Policy Representation in Western Europe: Electoral Choice across Ideological Dimensions” The article (https://bit.ly/3fgtHJ4) is co-authored with Zoe Lefkofridi and Johanna Willmann. In the article, the authors investigate the electoral preferences of left-authoritarian voters in Western Europe. Left-authoritarian voters are those that hold left-wing economic preferences and favor for example higher levels of redistribution but combine these preferences with more authoritarian positions on cultural issues. Because there are only very few parties that combine left-wing economic with more authoritarian positions, these voters often do not find direct representation in the party system. So they have to decide if they rather vote with their economic or cultural preferences. In their analysis, the authors find that issue salience plays a key role in determining which parties left-authoritarian voters prefer in the end. Later in the podcast, we talk about the role that left-authoritarian voters play for the transformation of European politics more generally. Can their changing electoral preferences explain why mainstream party support has declined and other parties such as the radical right have increased their support? What are other important groups in the electorate that make us understand these changes? Markus and I will talk about these and other questions in the next 45 minutes. For more information about Markus and his research you can follow him on twitter under “at” markuswagnerat or visit his website markuswagner.net I hope you enjoy the conversation Political science recommendation: Thau, Mads. 2019. How Political Parties Use Group-Based Appeals: Evidence from Britain 1964–2015. Political Studies: 67(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321717744495

In this episode, I talk to Cas Mudde who is Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF Professor of International Affairs at the University of Georgia. The conversation will focus on his 2007 book “Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe” but we will also talk about his new book “The Far Right Today” which is not only written for an academic but also a broader audience. https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509536832 Cas Mudde’s work has played a crucial role for defining and conceptually delineating the populist radical right. He defines the radical right as an ideological group that combines nativism and authoritarianism and distinguishes it from the extreme right, which is more decidedly anti-democratic. His definition of populism as a thin-centered ideology that pitches the pure people against the corrupt elite has become the reference point for much political science work on populism. The conversation focuses on how the far right has changed over the past decades – not only as an actor but more importantly in the perception of mainstream society. While they used to be parties and movements at the fringes of society, they have now become mainstream. If you are interested in knowing more about Cas and his work, you can follow him on Twitter under “at” CasMudde or visit his website https://spia.uga.edu/faculty-member/cas-mudde/ Cas also writes a regular column for the Guardian. I hope you enjoy the conversation Political science recommendation: Canovan, Margaret. 1999. Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. https://bit.ly/3eZaBa7

In this episode, I talk to Jane Gingrich who is Associate Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Oxford. Our conversation is about the changing support coalition of social democratic parties, their current electoral crisis and what all of this means for the welfare state. First, we focus on Jane’s 2015 article titled “The decline of the working-class vote, the reconfiguration of the welfare support coalition and consequences for the welfare state” which is co-authored with Silja Häusermann. (https://bit.ly/3bFfX8o) In this article, the authors show that the electoral support coalition for parties of the Left increasingly consists of educated middle class voters and how this affects the politics of the welfare state. The changing preferences of supporters of the Left, however, do not simply mean less redistribution but instead a different type of welfare state. Jane and I will talk about these and other questions in the next 45 minutes. For more information about Jane and her research you can follow her on twitter under at jrgingrich or visit her website https://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/member-of-staff/jane-gingrich/. I hope you enjoy the conversation Political science reading recommendation: Stephanie Mudge. 2018. Leftism Reinvented. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674971813

In this episode, I talk to Catherine de Vries who is Professor of Political Science at Bocconi University. Our conversation will focus on her forthcoming book “Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe.” which is co-authored with Sara Hobolt. The book will come out this summer but you can already pre-order it with Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9780691206547/political-entrepreneurs In the book Catherine de Vries and Sara Hobolt analyze how challenger parties use different strategies to change existing patterns of political competition. Successful challenger parties work as issue entrepreneurs – that means they politicize new issues that drive wedges through existing political coalitions. Think of the radical right and the issue of immigration. But challenger parties do not only politicize new issues, they equally make use of anti-establishment rhetoric in order to mobilize voters – and it is that combination that makes them successful. While much political science literature has focused on challenger parties such as Green or radical right parties, the book also points to the resilience and continuing market dominance of mainstream parties. In the remainder of the episode Catherine and I talk more generally about how parties can influence structures of political conflicts. For more information about Catherine and her research you can follow her on twitter under “at” CatherineDVries or visit her website catherinedevries.eu I hope you enjoy the conversation Political science recommendation: Peter Mair: Ruling the Void. https://www.versobooks.com/books/1447-ruling-the-void

In this episode, I talk to Silja Häusermann who is Professor of Swiss Politics and Comparative Political Economy at the University of Zurich. We talk about the 2015 book “The Politics of Advanced Capitalism”, which is co-edited with Pablo Beramendi, Herbert Kitschelt and Hanspeter Kriesi. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/politics-of-advanced-capitalism/7DDFD56C784EEB3C284098D05BACF104) In the introduction of this edited volume the 4 authors provide an analytic framework on how the transformations of post-industrial societies such as globalization, automation or changing gender roles have affected political outcomes. In order to understand the politics of advanced capitalist societies, it is crucial to take into account the preferences of socio-economic groups such as socio-cultural professionals or the petty bourgeoisie. In this changing environment, political parties can forge different alliances over these groups. These alliances in turn are essential to understand political outcomes. The conversation provides an insight into many developments in European politics in the past 30 years such as the changing support coalitions for social democratic and conservative parties or the changes in welfare and social policies. For more information about Silja and her research you can follow her on Twitter under "at" siljahausermann or visit her website siljahaeusermann.org I hope you enjoy the conversation Political science reading recommendation: Kitschelt/Lange/Marks/Stephens 1999: "Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism" https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/continuity-and-change-in-contemporary-capitalism/8E8895255449917A61655A7B182BEAAC