Skip to content


La vie est belle: Associate Professor position at Lille (France)

SEDEPE Member Julien Navarro (Lille) sent us the following job advert. Note that the deadline is fast approaching: 25 May, 2015.

Dear colleagues,

Congratulations for establishing this new standing group!

Would it be possible to circulate the attached announcement concerning a job opportunity at ESPOL (Lille)? Applications from students of elites and political leadership are welcome!

Best regards,

Julien

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized.


Elites and leadership in times of change… in Salamanca.

Marcelo Camerlo informs us…
Flacso España and Area of Political Science of the University of Salamanca invite you to submit a paper proposal to the “Elites y liderazgo en tiempos de cambio” (trans. “Elites and leadership in times of change” International Congress. The Congress will be  held in the city of Salamanca between 10-11 June 2015.

Posted in Uncategorized.


“The Way of the Professional Politician” in Spain.

SEDEPE member Javier Alarcón at Universidad de Jaén reminds us that the Spanish Political Science Association will host its next congress in San Sebastian from 13-15 July, 2015. SEDEPE members might be interested in submitting a paper for inclusion in a panel titled “The way of professional politicians”.

More details at  http://www.aecpa.es/congresos/XII-congreso/workgroup.php?GT=26

Posted in Uncategorized.


Paper Proposal Deadline for ECPR2015 Coming Up! (Feb 16, 2015)

 

SEDEPE is pleased to co-organize a section on Elites and Political Leadership at the upcoming European for Consortium for Political Research General Conference in Montreal, Canada. This section marks the initial offering of a new ECPR Standing Group on Elites and Political Leadership. The panels bring together contemporary debates, traditions and trajectories that students of both political and social elites and political leadership share. Paper proposals can be submitted via the ECPR website here.

Proposed Panels

Gendered Patterns of Elite Career paths in the Comparative Context

This panel explores the variation in elite career paths between men and women across political jurisdictions at the individual level of analysis.  The traditional barriers to individual-level data collection are rapidly evaporating at the advent of the era of big data analytics and “open government”. The impact on researchers’ ability to question and examine in detail the constraints and opportunities that exist within and around a political career are especially pronounced for those who study gender and politics as biographical data on both male and female political elites becomes increasingly available. Papers which address the determinants and consequences of elite appointment, duration and exit across country cases are welcome, as are those which address gendered career paths in the multi-level context.

Elite Social Background and Democratic Governance in Africa:

The literature on the characteristics of post-colonial African elites who achieve and retain political power is sparse. This literature has yet to systematically address the extent to which post-colonial social contexts and factors shape the paths of African political elites and guide them towards and within democratic regimes. This panel welcomes papers that link African elites and their political environments to the durability and development of democratic governance within their respective regimes.

Comparative Judicial Careers:

This panel welcomes papers on the subject of judicial careers in the comparative context. While attention has been paid to judicial career trajectories in individual country cases, particularly the US, fewer studies compare judicial careers across countries or system-types with an eye to explaining variation in the paths to, within and beyond the judiciary. Papers which compare appointments, resignations, the evolution and pattern of judicial decisions across states or levels within states are especially welcome.

Individual nomination procedures: the right persons for the job?

This panel seeks to compare political systems that specify some form of parliamentary investiture, confirmation/nomination/screening rules pertaining to the individual members of executive office. In the US, South Korean and other presidential systems cabinet members are screened by parliament, whereas the EU has recently adopted a process through which commissioners proposed by member states can be refused by the EP or reallocated to another portfolio before a vote by the EU Commission is taken. This panel aims to analyze these procedures and compare them to those used in systems where the cabinet depends on the support of parliament. What are the effects of these nomination rules on the choices of executive personnel made by presidents, PMs and party leaders (in coalition systems) – or member states in the EU – and on the eventual composition of executives? Owing to portfolio allocation, what is the impact of such rules on the policy expertise of executive portfolio holders?

Methodological developments for studying political elites

While regression and survival analysis continue to serve as workhorses when systematically studying political careers, developments in social science research methodology and the increased ease of access to new technology and data presents the opportunity to expand and enhance the study of political elites beyond the comfortable confines of existing and well-worn techniques. This panel welcomes innovative contributions to the study of political elites that employ new methods to answer old and new research questions alike. Papers that showcase big data and real-time analytics are especially welcome.

Authoritative leadership in the multilevel context

Ongoing scholarly debates on leadership capital and political leadership show that authority and credibility are crucial assets for political leaders, but that their attainment is not as straightforward as has been in the past. The demands placed on contemporary leaders are different and the socio-economical, institutional and political contexts in which they operate have changed considerably. In this panel we explore the sources of authority different types of leaders (can) draw on in their relationships with citizens, as well as the communicative characteristics of the interaction between citizens and leaders at different levels of government.

Political leadership: Theory and Practice – Contested Approaches

Different national political traditions have influenced the development of theories of leadership that are rooted in ‘cold’ advice on how to manage power (Machiavelli) or ‘warm’ approaches to ethically acceptable and exemplary modes of leadership. More recently, new theoretical concepts have included behavioural models, situational theories, and contingency theory. Many of these concepts derive from US influenced social sciences are firmly nested in approaches that highlight the importance of human agency. The panel explores theories of leadership under a special consideration of their historical and regional contexts to map out different ‘cultures’ of political leadership in theory and practice.

Political Leadership and Parliamentary Democracy in Comparative Perspective.

The changing nature of executive power has historical, policy and representative significance. This panel examines institutional, stylistic and historical shifts in the resources and development of the prime ministerial position in a selection of comparative cases. Papers consider resources, personality and perception. Also recruitment and pathways to power are considered in addition to responses to crises. Papers consider in particular the Canadian prime ministership, ranked as the most centralized of any major parliamentary democracy (O’Malley 2007). The panel explores facets of executive leadership in Canada, UK and Australia placing the dynamics of a parliamentary system in a North American society in a broader context.

Posted in Conferences.

Tagged with .


SEDEPE at ECPR 2015 in Montreal!

SEDEPE will co-host a section titled Elites and Political Leadership at the upcoming 2015 European Consortium for Political Research General Conference in Montreal, Canada. This section marks the initial offering of a new ECPR Standing Group on Elites and Political Leadership. The panels bring together contemporary debates, traditions and trajectories that students of both political and social elites and political leadership share. The panels range from those that focus on theory and method to structure and agency. The scope is far-reaching and considers the developed and developing worlds as well as a range of actors in their capacities as elites and leaders.

The panels include:

• Gendered Patterns of Elite Career paths in the Comparative Context
• Elite Social Background and Democratic Governance in Africa
• Comparative Judicial Careers
• Individual nomination procedures: the right persons for the job?
• Methodological developments for studying political elites
• Authoritative leadership in the multilevel context
• Political leadership: Theory and Practice – Contested Approaches
• Political Leadership and Parliamentary Democracy in Comparative Perspective.

Detailed descriptions of the individual panels can be found at: http://ecpr.eu/Events/SectionDetails.aspx?SectionID=457&EventID=94
The deadline for paper submissions is 16 February, 2015. We hope to see you in Montreal!

Posted in Conferences.

Tagged with .


The Selection of Ministers Around the World

SEDEPE is pleased to announce the publication of The Selection of Ministers Around the World edited by Keith Dowding and Patrick Dumont. This book examines the process of selection, shuffling and removal of ministers in national cabinets around the world. Drawing on original data over several decades, it offers a series of case studies of countries from around the world with differing institutional and cultural structures including presidential and semi-presidential systems, and parliamentary, unitary and federal systems, some of which have experienced periods under authoritarian regimes. Featuring 14 case studies on North and South America, Asia, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, this book complements the earlier volume The Selection of Ministers in Europe (Routledge, 2009) and is published as part of the Routledge Research on Social and Political Elites series.

 

Posted in Research.

Tagged with .


PhD position at the University of Bamberg

Dear colleagues,

We here attach a job advertisement for a Ph.D. position at the University of Bamberg as part of the project “Bringing policies back in: Explaining payoff allocation in coalition governments”, led by Heike Klüver (Bamberg) in collaboration with Hanna Bäck (Lund University). I would really appreciate if you could forward this information to any advanced students who might be interested in doing a Ph.D. on coalition politics.

Best wishes,
Hanna

Bamberg_PhD_Coalition_Project
———————————————————————
Hanna Bäck, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer
Department of Political Science
Lund University
Box 52, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden
Telephone: +46 46 2220161
Fax: +46 462224006
E-mail: Hanna.Back@svet.lu.se
Webpage: www.svet.lu.se/?HBA
———————————————————————

Posted in Uncategorized.


Reminder to submit papers to the SEDEPE section at ECPR2014 (Glasgow)

Dear SEDEPE friends,
We wanted to send out a friendly reminder that the deadline to submit paper proposals for the SEDEPE section at the 2014 ECPR General Conference in Glasgow, Scotland is Saturday February 15, 2014. The SEDEPE section is titled: Assessing the Effects of the Preferences and Trajectories of Political Elites and you can upload your paper proposal via the ECPR General Conference webpage. Note that you will need to login via MyECPR first.
Details regarding the individual panels can be found below. In order to facilitate selection and paper allocation we ask that you include the name of the panel for which your paper should be considered.  We also politely ask that you send a short email to the panel chair to let him/her/them know that you have submitted your proposal for consideration. This will greatly facilitate the decision-making process and ensure a faster response.
Sincerely,

The SEDEPE Executive

The panels are the following:

1. The composition of policy-making groups and their impact on policy outputs
Chair: Eoin O’Malley, Dublin City University.

In a now famous biography of Abraham Lincoln it was suggested that his administration benefited from bringing together a ‘team of rivals’ whose diverse skills and backgrounds led to clashes that benefited policy-making and implementation in the US at that time. In the UK a former Cabinet Secretary suggested that it was the uniformity of opinion within the Treasury that led to the financial crisis, or at least that it was not anticipated. Is there broader support for the idea that diversity of opinions, skills or backgrounds among the policy-making elites has an impact on the quality of policy outputs? We welcome theoretical, methodological and empirical papers that seek to answer that question. Given the difficulty in measuring some of these concepts we welcome country or single policy case studies. We interpret elites broadly (ministers, senior civil servants, special advisers, etc.).

2. The role of individual ministers in policy-making/reform-making
Chairs: Hanna Bäck, University of Lund, Sweden; Patrick Dumont, University of Luxembourg

Rational partisan theory considers political parties as the central actors in the policy-making process and therefore associates changes in government partisan complexion with changes in public policy outputs. The link between parties’ preferences and policy outputs however ought to be different according to whether cabinet policy-making is subject to ministerial discretion or if line ministers are constrained by their prime minister, a coalition agreement or any of the cabinet parties who could veto a proposal. A focus on individual ministers and the institutional constraints (cabinet decision-making structures) they evolve in is warranted to answer the following crucial questions: how does portfolio allocation across parties and individuals affect public policy? Are partisan effects only expected for policies that are salient to the portfolio holder? Does individual minister background (expertise and experience) matter? What should we expect from non-partisan expert ministers? What the impact of reshuffles on policy-making and policy outputs?

3. The Consequences of Ministerial Turnover
Chairs: Matthew Kerby, University of Ottawa, Canada and Klaus Stolz, Chemnitz University of Technology

Existing research on ministerial elites typically addresses the impact of biographical, institutional or political determinants on ministerial recruitment and ministerial exit. Building on research which relates ministerial turnover to government survival, cabinet management, and government popularity, this panel welcomes papers which address the impact of cabinet exit/cabinet turnover on individual political actors (post cabinet careers), parties and governments (performance and integrity), and legislature evolution and health ( i.e. what is the relationship between ministerial turnover and institutionalization?).

4. Political elites and multilevel settings amid times of crisis
Chair: Juan Rodríguez Teruel, University of Valencia

Multilevel politics have shaped the way political elites are recruited, move up and down and leave their posts in European countries. However, while in most American countries there are stable patterns of elite recruitment and circulation built through years, in many other Western countries there have been recent processes of decentralization from unitarian states to more or less federal structures. Moreover, economic crisis in some countries may have even fostered conflicts and trade-offs between national and subnational elites. To account for this evolving landscape, we welcomes paper addressing  executive, legislative or judicial elites and their political recruitment (what factors explain appointments) and their circulation across territorial layers as well as their role in managing multilevel politics.

5. Revisiting the Beliefs of Politicians
Chair: Jens Borchert, University of Frankfurt

In 1973 Robert Putnam published ‘The Beliefs of Politicians’, a study of British and Italian politicians’ conception of politics and democracy. Since then the topic has not received too much attention.  The focus has always been on studying mass attitudes. This panel will include papers that use various methodological approaches to look at elite conceptions of democracy as they can be studied in surveys,  public discourse, publications, or everyday practice. A comparative perspective is strongly encouraged.

Posted in Conferences.


An Additional ECPR Panel for Glasgow: Policy Congruence: Causes and Consequences

SEDEPE member Lars Vogel (Jena) welcomes proposals to a panel titled “Policy Congruence: Causes and Consequences”, which is located in the “Elites and citizens: leadership, responsiveness or distance?” section.

Panel description:

Policy congruence has been considered as one of the main linkage mechanism between political elites and citizens. Further, in normative terms some degree of policy congruence is considered as desirable goal for representative democracies. Starting with the pioneering study by Miller/Stokes the policy-congruence approach has undergone a wide range of transformations and adaptations, analyzing amongst others policy congruence between legislators and their electoral districts, between public opinion and policy output, or between party leaders and their voters. Further distinctions are made between dyadic and collective, static and dynamic, many-to-one and many-to-many, input and output congruence to mention just a few. The manifold concepts assume different causes and consequences of policy congruence, which leads to diverging conceptions of the meaning of policy congruence and its relevance for representative democracies.

The panel therefore invites papers that deliberately address causes and consequences of policy congruence. Policy congruence is thereby understood in its widest sense comprising all above-mentioned forms. Papers are particular welcome that address the direction of influence: is policy congruence caused by responsive elites and active citizens (from below), or by elite leadership with following citizens (from above), or by other mechanisms (mutual or thermostatic feedback), or is it conditional on contextual factors? Comparative studies are also welcome that investigate into the institutional factors determining the degree of policy congruence. We further look forward for papers that analyze for single polities or within multi-level approaches the incentives and determinants for individual elite members to accord with their constituents. We also appreciate contributions that deal with the impact of policy congruence on evaluations of individual legislators or the political system (e.g. trust or democratic satisfaction). Of special interest is the question whether actual policy congruence is linked to citizens’ perception of elite- or system-responsiveness.

Paper proposal details can be found on the ECPR website: http://www.ecpr.eu/MyEcpr/Forms/PaperProposalForm.aspx?EventID=14

Posted in Conferences.


SEDEPE Panels at ECPR 2014 (Glasgow)

Dear SEDEPE friends.

Please find below a list of panels that SEDEPE has organized and will host at the upcoming 2014 European Consortium for Political Research General Conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

We invite you to submit paper proposals directly via the ECPR website. In order to facilitate selection and paper allocation we ask that you include the name of the panel for which your paper should be considered.  We also politely ask that you send a short email to the panel chair to let him/her/them know that you have submitted your proposal for consideration. This will greatly facilitate the decision-making process and ensure a faster response.

Sincerely,

The SEDEPE Executive

 

The panels are the following:

1. The composition of policy-making groups and their impact on policy outputs
Chair: Eoin O’Malley, Dublin City University.

In a now famous biography of Abraham Lincoln it was suggested that his administration benefited from bringing together a ‘team of rivals’ whose diverse skills and backgrounds led to clashes that benefited policy-making and implementation in the US at that time. In the UK a former Cabinet Secretary suggested that it was the uniformity of opinion within the Treasury that led to the financial crisis, or at least that it was not anticipated. Is there broader support for the idea that diversity of opinions, skills or backgrounds among the policy-making elites has an impact on the quality of policy outputs? We welcome theoretical, methodological and empirical papers that seek to answer that question. Given the difficulty in measuring some of these concepts we welcome country or single policy case studies. We interpret elites broadly (ministers, senior civil servants, special advisers, etc.).

2. The role of individual ministers in policy-making/reform-making
Chairs: Hanna Bäck, University of Lund, Sweden; Patrick Dumont, University of Luxembourg

Rational partisan theory considers political parties as the central actors in the policy-making process and therefore associates changes in government partisan complexion with changes in public policy outputs. The link between parties’ preferences and policy outputs however ought to be different according to whether cabinet policy-making is subject to ministerial discretion or if line ministers are constrained by their prime minister, a coalition agreement or any of the cabinet parties who could veto a proposal. A focus on individual ministers and the institutional constraints (cabinet decision-making structures) they evolve in is warranted to answer the following crucial questions: how does portfolio allocation across parties and individuals affect public policy? Are partisan effects only expected for policies that are salient to the portfolio holder? Does individual minister background (expertise and experience) matter? What should we expect from non-partisan expert ministers? What the impact of reshuffles on policy-making and policy outputs?

3. The Consequences of Ministerial Turnover
Chairs: Matthew Kerby, University of Ottawa, Canada and Klaus Stolz, Chemnitz University of Technology

Existing research on ministerial elites typically addresses the impact of biographical, institutional or political determinants on ministerial recruitment and ministerial exit. Building on research which relates ministerial turnover to government survival, cabinet management, and government popularity, this panel welcomes papers which address the impact of cabinet exit/cabinet turnover on individual political actors (post cabinet careers), parties and governments (performance and integrity), and legislature evolution and health ( i.e. what is the relationship between ministerial turnover and institutionalization?).

4. Political elites and multilevel settings amid times of crisis
Chair: Juan Rodríguez Teruel, University of Valencia

Multilevel politics have shaped the way political elites are recruited, move up and down and leave their posts in European countries. However, while in most American countries there are stable patterns of elite recruitment and circulation built through years, in many other Western countries there have been recent processes of decentralization from unitarian states to more or less federal structures. Moreover, economic crisis in some countries may have even fostered conflicts and trade-offs between national and subnational elites. To account for this evolving landscape, we welcomes paper addressing  executive, legislative or judicial elites and their political recruitment (what factors explain appointments) and their circulation across territorial layers as well as their role in managing multilevel politics.

5. Revisiting the Beliefs of Politicians
Chair: Jens Borchert, University of Frankfurt

In 1973 Robert Putnam published ‘The Beliefs of Politicians’, a study of British and Italian politicians’ conception of politics and democracy. Since then the topic has not received too much attention.  The focus has always been on studying mass attitudes. This panel will include papers that use various methodological approaches to look at elite conceptions of democracy as they can be studied in surveys,  public discourse, publications, or everyday practice. A comparative perspective is strongly encouraged.

 

Posted in Uncategorized.