|
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München |
|
Welcome to the Chair of Comparative Political Science!
|
The team of researchers based at the Chair of Comparative Political Science is dedicated to the study of consolidated democracies and the challenges they face, with a focus on European democracies. We cover a wide range of topics such as crisis politics and its long-term consequences for the functioning of democracies, challenges related to the integration of migrants, the contentious role of constitutional courts in law-making and the ever more challenging mobilization of citizens in individualizing societies. Our interests lay in political parties, civil society organizations and citizens as much as in parliaments, governments and courts, whether they are operating on the national, regional or European level. We engage in theoretically informed, systematic empirical analysis, highlighting the importance of a tight integration of theory, substance and method. While building on insights across the social sciences including political science, sociology and comparative law, we combine in our work a variety of methods including state-of-the art quantitative, experimental and qualitative methods. You can find out more about the research interests of the members of LMU's Chair of Comparative Politics here and an overview over our ongoing research projects here. |
News and announcements
New book published by Springer: Soft Law and National Courts in the European Union, by Adam EickAdam Eick's book examines how national courts use EU soft law – instruments that are legally non-binding but can have significant practical and legal consequences. Through quantitative mapping, the book reveals that, while courts rarely use soft law, they are doing so increasingly. Case studies demonstrate that such cases can have significant effects for those involved and policy outcomes, for example on the provision of welfare services by non-state actors.
|
New book published by Springer: Sociopolitical Conditions and Migrant Integration in Western Europe, by Michael NeureiterMichael Neureiter's book brings new insights from social psychology to explore migrant integration in Western Europe. Through a series of survey studies it illustrates the importance of sociopolitical conditions, such as political polarization and discriminatory climates, for understanding cross-national variation in migrant integration outcomes. Neureiter investigates how migrants integrate; what factors facilitate or hinder successful integration; and how successes and failures along the way affect subsequent integration outcomes.
|
New CIVILSPACE article published in Governance: "Populism and the Strength of Freedom of Information Laws: Insights From European Countries (2000–2022)" by Fabrizio Di Mascio, Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta, Marzia Ippolito, and Vivian Spyropoulou |
New article published in European Journal of Political Research: "Pragmatic rather than principled: Organisational bans in democracies" by Michael Zeller |
|
The article investigates whether populist parties serve as a corrective to democratic deficiencies by enhancing access to information, or if they represent a threat to transparency, thereby undermining democratic accountability. The research employs a dual-method approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analysis draws on a novel dataset measuring the strength of Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation across 11 European countries from 2000 to 2022. To deepen these findings, the study incorporates an in-depth qualitative analysis of Hungary—a country characterized by the dominant position in government of a right-wing populist party. Results reveal that the effect of populist parties on access to information is contingent upon their degree of access to government power and their ideological orientation.
|
The article investigates why governments ban some extremist organisations and not others. The study draws on data about far-right organisations in Germany mentioned in federal security agency reports since 1990. Two-step fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) reveals that Germany’s militant democracy practices are not applied as a matter of principle to every far-right organisation susceptible to a ban, but rather are used more pragmatically. This pragmatic approach implies that state actors should be especially attentive to the efficacy of using bans to disrupt and diminish extremist threats. Although there is some evidence of state actors considering efficacy, there are also indications that banning is sometimes a tool of politics rather than a targeted response to threats.
|
|
Successful application for Nicole Bolleyer: "The Henriette-Herz-Scouting-Programme"
|
New article published in Perspectives on Politics: "The Study of Intraparty Frictions: Conceptual Reflections on Preference Heterogeneity, Disagreement, and Conflict" by Nicole Bolleyer and Ann-Kristin Kölln
|
|
Nicole Bolleyer has successfully applied for the Henriette-Herz-Scouting programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. As selected scout, over the next three years she will be able to recommend three young research talents from abroad for a Humboldt Research Fellowship - a fully funded research fellowship over the course of two years - who wish to conduct their own research project in the fields of comparative civil society, organization or party research at the Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science. The programme is intended to promote both internationalisation and diversity amongst junior researches by especially focusing on research talents who have not previously conducted a research stay in Germany. Further information on the programme can be found here. |
In their new journal article ”The Study of Intraparty Frictions: Conceptual Reflections on Preference Heterogeneity, Disagreement, and Conflict” Nicole Bolleyer and Ann-Kristin Kölln shed light on the contradictory evolutions with regard to intraparty frictions by employing a three-step conceptual analysis. Every complex organization is sometimes marked by preference heterogeneity, disagreement, and conflict. Within political parties, such frictions are traditionally viewed negatively, while recent research has started to perceive them more positively. How might such contradictory evaluations be explained? Through a three-step conceptual analysis we (1) identify two analytical perspectives on intraparty friction, one rooted in a primarily structural conception of parties, one in a primarily behavioral conception; and (2) specify a minimal definition of intraparty friction, which underpins a hierarchical concept structure to (3) suggest a way to resolve contradictions in the consequences attributed to intraparty frictions. Structuralist accounts often view frictions as negative due to a more demanding conceptual threshold, suggesting different types and levels of risk taking by conflict partners. Conversely, behavioralist perspectives see friction more often as beneficial because they focus on expressed disagreement without necessitating an organizational response. Our conceptual tools have important implications for research on membership organizations generally. The journal article can be read here. |
|
New book published by Oxford University Press: "Civil Society's Democratic Potential: Organizational Trade-Offs between Participation and Representation" by Nicole Bolleyer
|
Editorial by Michael Zeller published in Der Standard: The Logic behind the Anti-AfD Protests
|
|
In her book Civil Society’s Democratic Potential, Nicole Bolleyer explores which civil society organizations (CSOs) contribute to democracy, how, and why. Organized civil society, including interest groups, political parties, and service-oriented associations, is traditionally considered a cornerstone of democracy. Constituting the organizational fabric between government and society, these organizations encompass a wide diversity of entities thought to fundamentally contribute to both democratic participation and representation. However, CSOs’ readiness and ability to serve as venues for participation, vehicles of democratic representation, or indeed both at the same time, are increasingly questioned in political science, sociology and voluntary sector research alike. Bringing those fields together, the author argues that two contrasting organizational templates – the ‘voluntary association’ and the ‘professionalized voluntary organization’ – allow theorizing fundamental trade-offs shaping CSOs’ performance on three dimensions accounting for their varying democratic contributions: participation, representation, and societal responsiveness. The study’s theoretical framework is examined using a mixed-methods design. The latter combines the analysis of survey data covering over 3,000 CSOs across four European democracies with qualitative case studies of the evolution of three CSOs – a political party, an interest group and a service-orientated organization – over the course of several decades. |
In his editorial for ”Der Standard” Michael Zeller focuses on the recent Anti-AfD protests in Germany and its possible impacts. He maintains that demonstrations have different prospects for achieving an impact in political and legal arenas. Both arenas are explored in his editorial. Michael Zeller further presents interesting data that give information about the scope of the Anti-AfD protests in Germany. |
|
Successful EU grant application for Michael Zeller: "The European Violent Right-Wing Extremism Monitoring (EVREM) Project"
|
New article published in Journal of East Asian Studies: "Thailand's Movement Party: The Evolution of the Move Forward Party" by Thareerat Laohabut and Duncan McCargo
|
|
The project builds upon the “Knowledge Package of Violent Right-Wing Extremist Organisations, Symbols, and Manifestoes” (‘PREO’) commissioned by the EU in 2021. The core team delivering the initial PREO project (Prof. Matthew Feldman, Project Manager; and the Coordination Integration Experts, Dr. Michael Zeller and Dr. Michael Vaughan) will provided updated knowledge infrastructure about proscribed right-wing extremist groups as well as expanding to cover active violent right-wing extremist organisations. This knowledge infrastructure is drawn from teams of country experts (involving over 50 individual experts) covering all EU Member States as well as several influential neighbouring countries. The EVREM project also adds key specialists in social media research, data scraping, and analysis (via Pyrra; Rebecca Jones, Dr. Welton Chang, and Eric Curwin, acting as Technical Integration Experts) as well as in right-wing extremist manifestoes and violent activism by so-called ‘incels’ (via the Taxonomy and Manifestoes Databases Coordination Expert, Pragya Rai). The group leader for this project is the European Centre for Democracy Development, directed by Dr. Valery Engel. As a whole, the EVREM project will deliver excellence in the monitoring of Violent Right-Wing Extremism within EU Member States as well as in influential neighbouring countries. The project is funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. |
In their new article “Thailand's Movement Party: The Evolution of the Move Forward Party”, Thareerat Laohabut and Duncan McCargo shed light on the rise of movement parties in non-European contexts through a comprehensive analysis of Thailand's Move Forward Party, which stands out as the most successful movement party in Asia. By examining the connections between two Thai political parties and a variety of protest movements, they find that a political context with low electoral barriers for new parties and shifts in cleavage structures can lead to the emergence of a clandestine movement party. The transformation of such a party into a fully- fledged movement party is likely to occur under two conditions: the presence of mass movements and the emergence of collective demands overlooked by established parties. These findings suggest that the distinction between a movement party and a conventional office-seeking party is not always transparent, as parties may intentionally blur the line and behave like a clandestine movement party. |