The XVIII Nordic Political Science Congress in Odense, Denmark, August 8-11, 2017


Call for papers - please upload your paper  no later than 25 July.

Provisional schedule of activities

rel="noopener noreferrer"

15 June 2017

Academic program prepared

15 July 2017

Final academic program prepared

 1 July 2017 Deadline for registration

25 July 2017

Deadline for submission of final paper

8-11 August 2017


 The format of the NOPSA workshop is that conference participants sign up for only one workshop during the entire conference. Workshops vary in size: Some have few particpants, some have more than 20. It’s up to the workshop directors how to organize the workshops. A common way of organizing a workshop is to assign 45 minutes per paper for presentation, comments from discussant(s) and general discussion among workshop participants. However, if a workshop has many participants, the workshop directors may want to have more than one paper presented and discussed during a 45 minutes session.


1. Between Institution and Instrument – Governance and Regulation of Higher Education.

2. Foreign Policy: Nordic perspectives and beyond. 

3. From Russia with Love – the study of intelligence meets IR

4. Political and Social Trust: National and International Perspectives

5. Arctic and Indigenous Politics and Governance

6. Emerging roles and work forms for politicians in Nordic local governments

7. Communicating politics in the digital age: new media, new politicalstrategies, and new political communication?  

8. Multiculturalism: political dynamics and conflicts. 

9. Public Management Reforms for Transboundary Policy Challenges:  Coordination for Integration, Crisis Organizing and Beyond. 

10. Politisk dynamik i Östeuropa: mellan yttre tryck och nationella spänningar. 

11. Current challenges in health sector governance in Europe. 

12. Political Parties in the Age of Declining Party Membership. 

13. Critical Engagement with Security: Securitization and Beyond. 

14. The workings of political discourses. 

15. The future of global order between moral collapse and political instability. 

16. Evaluation in the Public Sector. 

17. Representative democracy: Citizens, political elites and political systems. 

18. Political Behaviour and its Social Structural Antecedents. 

19. The Politics of Inequality in Rich Democracies. 

20. Political psychology. 

21. The whole world of welfare. 

22. Writing the rules of 21st century trade: Parliamentary assertion, social mobilization, and deep integration

23. Media Policy and Digitalization

24. Demokratisk fremgang og tilbagegang uden for vesten

25. Collaboration and power


1. Between Institution and Instrument – Governance and Regulation of Higher Education


There is an ongoing debate in political science and public management on how to understand governance and regulation of public institutions. This debate has been dominated by the use of different acronyms like PA, NPM and NPG just to mention a few. Since the 1980s, major reform tendencies in governance and regulation of public institutions have tended to be characterized as New Public Management (NPM). Countries may follow different patterns, and specific regimes may be more pronounced in some countries than others. After a period with a dominant governance regime (NPM), many countries may find themselves in a period of change and transformation. This transformation may not only involve modes of governance, but also more fundamental changes in the role and status of public service institutions.

The performance of higher education institutions are in many countries seen as a way to increase economic growth, innovation and create new industries. This means that higher education and research now have a more prominent position on national and international policy agendas. This has already resulted in governance and regulation reforms of higher education institutions in many countries which fundamentally question their role and position vis-à-vis the state. This makes higher education institutions a very interesting case for studying governance and regulation of public service institutions.

It will be possible to address research questions such as:

  • What changes of higher education governance regimes have occurred?
  • What are the conditions under which particular regimes or regime mixes are developed and sustained?
  • How can we explain cross country variation of higher education governance regimes?
  • How do actual governance regimes affect performance? (e.g. research, education, cooperation with stakeholders?).
  • What is the impact of changes in governance regimes on internal management and procedures?

Both conceptual papers and empirical papers are welcome. Papers analyzing cross-national and or cross-sector comparative data are of particular interest, but papers analyzing single cases in a comparative perspective are also welcomed.

Workshop chair:
Ivar Bleiklie, professor, Department of Administration and Organizational Theory, University of Bergen,

Workshop vice-chair:
Niels Ejersbo, Senior researcher, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research,

Back to overview ↑

2. Foreign Policy: Nordic perspectives and beyond


Foreign policy has been the subject of increased attention from students of international relations over the past two decades. Coming out of the Cold War shadow an increasing number of scholars have moved the focus from the structural conditions for policy-making to the actual conduct of foreign policy, e.g. diplomatic practice, grand strategy and foreign policy decision-making. The workshop explores this development, and discusses how recent theoretical developments within e.g. political psychology, practice theory and neoclassical realism have influenced the study of foreign policy. We ask how changing domestic and international conditions for foreign policy making such as Europeanization, globalization and reforms of foreign services have changed foreign policy and our understanding of it.

We encourage papers that take stock of and contribute to the theoretical development of the study of foreign policy as well as single and comparative cases studies of foreign policy. In particular, we encourage studies of smaller European states inside and outside the Nordic region. Papers dealing with various historical eras, particularly the end of the Cold War and the post-Cold War transformation are sought after. We encourage paper proposals from emerging as well as established scholars.


Tuomas Forsberg, University of Tampere, School of Management, E-mail:
Anders Wivel, University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science, E-mail:

Back to overview ↑

3. From Russia with Love – the study of intelligence meets International Relations


Textbooks for students about theories of international relations are remarkably silent on the topic of espionage. This is a serious flaw, because the state practice of espionage has affected decisions and outcomes in world affairs. For instance, the Iraq war is often seen as an intelligence failure or take the Korean War – the Americans knew about the Soviet air support for North Korea from their intelligence. So this workshop seeks to remedy this flaw by bringing Nordic scholars who do study intelligence practices of selected states or non-state actors together. As the two chairpersons represent two vital disciplines within the study of intelligence - political science and history, respectively - this is a workshop that is open to multidisciplinary papers and debates. Indeed, our ambition is to further cross-fertilization and perhaps launch a joint publication if the participants feel it makes sense.

So the workshop invites papers dealing with any topic within the field of intelligence studies. Studies of Russian and Soviet espionage are indeed welcome as indicated through the title of the workshop, but so are studies of contemporary Chinese espionage activity, studies of private intelligence actors, industrial espionage as an issue within IPE (International Political Economy), Stasi studies, covert CIA action etc. etc. One paper will be devoted to reflecting upon the broader approaches within the study of IR (realism, liberalism, constructivism, the English school, geo-economics) as well as the agent-principal approach known from administrative science and their possible application upon the phenomenon of espionage. Such a macro-perspective upon the field might serve the didactic purpose of opening the teaching of IR to intelligence studies.

Mette Skak, PhD Associate Professor, Dept. of Political Science Aarhus University,

Thomas Wegener Friis, PhD Associate Professor, Dept. of History, Center for Cold War Studies, SDU.

Back to overview ↑

4. Political and Social Trust: National and International Perspectives


In recent decades we have witnessed increasing public contestation of national and international political institutions. This trend has paralleled a decline in trust in governments and international organizations, such as the European Union, the United Nations, and the International Monetary fund, with detrimental implications for the legitimacy and effectiveness of political institutions. These developments have led scholars working from a variety of theoretical and methodological angles to engage in the study of political trust and social trust more generally. However, we still have no conclusive knowledge about how political and social trust can be created and maintained, how it is broken, and whether it can be restored when broken.

In the study of domestic politics, political trust largely focuses on citizens’ level i.e. how governmental institutions, political parties and actors operate against the backdrop of the citizens' normative expectations. High trust is seen to make institutions work effectively, facilitates social and economic exchange, moderates transaction costs in markets and reduces the need for control and supervision. In international organizations, trust is an issue for diverse forms of collective action beyond the nation state. Key issues have been the study of: citizens’ trust in international organizations, with implications for the legitimacy and effectiveness of these organizations; and how trust can be developed on the interpersonal level between policy-makers and when and why much this level of interaction matters compared to the structural constraints and collective identities.

This workshop relates to and seeks to go beyond existing literature on political and social trust in fields such as comparative politics, political psychology, political economy, and international relations. We invite contributions from these fields to bring together a variety of (both junior and senior) scholars working in various fields and using various methodologies. We welcome theoretical or empirical, normative or positive contributions. For example, we welcome theoretical studies on the concepts of political and social trust as well as interpersonal trust in politics, or empirical studies focusing on the various expressions and trends of political and/or social trust, either at the micro- or macro levels. In doing so, we hope to contribute to a more comprehensive and broader understanding of trust and legitimacy in domestic and international policy-making.

Papers should be written in English, but we will consider manuscripts in Swedish. The working language of the panel is English.

Chair: Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen, University Lecturer, Adjunct Professor, University of Tampere,

Co-chair: Maria Bäck, University of Tampere,

Back to overview ↑

5. Arctic and Indigenous Politics and Governance


Gjennom de siste årtiene har urfolk fått økende politisk betydning. For det første har en betydelig politisk mobilisering funnet sted blant urfolk. Urfolk verden rundt har trådt fram som politiske aktører, blant annet for å fremme interesser knyttet til selvbestemmelse og kontroll over naturressurser. For det andre har stater svart på denne utfordringen på ulikt vis. Noen steder er separate institusjoner opprettet for å sikre urfolks politiske representasjon, andre steder er urfolks deltakelse forsøkt ivaretatt innenfor rammen av eksisterende politiske institusjoner. For det tredje har moderne urfolkspolitikk i økende grad blitt internasjonalisert, gjennom urfolkssamarbeid på tvers av landegrenser og ved deltakelse i internasjonale fora. Mange urfolksgrupper bruker også den internasjonale arenaen strategisk for å nå fram overfor nasjonale myndigheter.

I de nordiske landene finner vi interessante eksempler på institusjoner for urfolksrepresentasjon. I Finland, Norge og Sverige er det opprettet sameting. Dette er organer for ikke-territoriell representasjon – representative forsamlinger valgt av og blant landets samer. Det er likevel betydelige forskjeller mellom de tre sametingenes utforming og myndighet. Innenfor den danske staten finner vi en territorielt avgrenset ordning, der Grønland har utviklet sitt hjemmestyre til et utvidet selvbestemmelsessystem. I arbeidsgruppa  ønsker vi bidrag både om de nordiske landene og andre deler av verden.

Tematisk ønsker vi en arbeidsgruppe med bidrag som belyser ett eller flere av de tre aspektene nevnt ovenfor: politisk deltakelse og mobilisering, representative organer og politikkutforming, og internasjonalt samarbeid. Bidrag om samspillet mellom disse vil være svært velkomne. Vi er også interessert i bidrag om den historiske utviklingen av urfolks deltakelse og representasjon, og om medienes dekning av urfolksspørsmål. Bidrag til arbeidsgruppa kan være så vel case-studier som komparative studier av flere land og regioner, eller statistiske analyser.

The Arctic has been part of Western international political and economic systems for centuries despite being a remote and difficult accessible periphery. As a reflection of globalization, the Arctic is today attracting global interest while climate change and melting sea ice are opening up for different kinds of actors and activities. The Arctic has witnessed tensions and co-operations between states bordering the Arctic (the Nordic countries, Russia, Canada and the US) and indigenous peoples (Inuit, Sami and other peoples). Arctic societies are predominantly based on natural resources - such as fisheries, mining, and energy - and developing these resources entail substantial risks. Sub-state jurisdictions have existed for some time and some of these are claiming more self-determination, sovereignty and even statehood. Global interests in the Arctic include non-Arctic states and NGOs from Europe, Asia and elsewhere with ambitions to participate in the activities of the Arctic Council. We invite both conceptual, theoretical and empirical papers and a diversified group of participants in terms of gender, seniority and geography to discuss these and other issues related to nation building, state formation, economic and social developments, including trade and tourism, resource governance, multi-level governance issues, sustainability issues, environmental politics, security issues, risk management, educational capacity building etc. The overall aim is to create a workshop of researchers with different approaches, representing different sub-disciplines, with a common interest in Arctic politics.

Jo Saglie, Institutt for samfunnsforskning (Oslo),

Uffe Jakobsen (chair), Arctic Politics Research Group, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark,

Back to overview ↑

6. Politicians in Nordic local governments – emerging roles and work forms


Fiscal austerity and rising expectations and demands for services place local political authorities under pressure to collaborate with a wide variety of actors in delivering public services, promoting community and business development and securing sustainable socioeconomic growth. Hence, local governments increasingly engage in inter-municipal cooperation, partnerships with private firms and voluntary organizations, and involve citizens in different kinds of co-production and co-creation. In such a multi-level and multi-actor political system, pressure is put on local government councillors to change their role perceptions and way of working. While their role traditionally has been to represent their constituency, decide overall political goals and control administrative implementation processes, the new challenges put pressure on them to develop a form of interactive political leadership that aim to mobilize and guide citizens and other local actors in defining public tasks as well as in developing and implementing public governance initiatives.

We invite papers discussing the challenges faced by municipal councillors, emerging political roles and practices, and new ways of organizing the political processes in Nordic municipalities. Moreover, we invite papers that analyze the impact and implications of these changes. Among other things, papers may address questions concerning the relationship between representation and other key concepts in theories of democracy and interactive political leadership. Another relevant theme is the implications of new developments in political leadership among councillors and the role played by the administrative and professional actors in local governments. Relevant are also studies of patterns of interaction between elected politicians, citizens and organized interests. Finally, papers that map and analyze new ways of organizing the political process are welcomed. We accept as well theoretical, as methodical and empirical papers. Comparative papers will be prioritized.

We allow papers in English or one of the Scandinavian languages. Scandinavian languages will be spoken during the workshop sessions.

Signy Irene Vabo, professor
Universitetet i Oslo
Institutt for statsvitenskap
Pilestredet 35, Holbergs plass
PO Box 1072 Blindern
0316 OSLO
telefon: + 47 22 85 44 30

Vice Chair:
Eva Sørensen, professor
Roskilde Universitet (og NORD Universitet)
Bygning 25.2
Universitetsvej 1
PO Box 260
4000 Roskilde
Telefon: + 45 46 74 24 86

Back to overview ↑

7. Communicating politics in the digital age: new media, new politicalstrategies, and new political communication?


It is the best of times, it is the worst of times for political communication. It is the worst for the traditional media’s financial situation and the increasing competition with digital media about the power to communicate politics and to set the political agenda. Yet this is also a time of new opportunities. It has never been easier for citizens to find relevant political information and participate politically, and for political actors to reach out to voters.

One of the most important elements of politics is communicating political issues to the public. Thus, media and politics are inextricably connected. Currently the relation between political actors, the media and citizens are changing. Increasingly, politicians are seeking new ways of communicating to voters.

Even though the press is still a profound source of political information and deliberation, political actors are gradually making use of social media and other digital tools to set their own agendas. Moreover, the digitalized society also brings about new arenas where citizens can participate politically.

Questions related to the shifting power regarding to whom, about what, where and how politics is communicated, are pertinent to ask within the disciplines of both political- and communication science. In order to answer such questions, the different disciplines studying the communication of politics should work together. Digitalization not only offers new questions, but also new opportunities for research toanswer such questions. Online survey panels and experiments, innovations regardingautomated content analysis and new forms of exposure measures do help to define the role digitalization nowadays has in the political process. Combining digital research insights with more established quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches in the social sciences can foster the understanding of how digitalization influences political processes.

This workshop seeks to bring new insights about the impact of a changing media and communication environment on political processes into existence by combining research from communication- and political science. We welcome social scientists looking at communication processes of political actors, new and traditional media, and citizens. We thereby want the workshop to be open to studies dealing with political rhetoric and communication strategies, interpersonal communication about politics, political content in the media, actor-centric approaches and political media effect-studies.

In the Nordic context, political communication is salient on the research agenda in the disciplines of communication science and political science. Through previous NOPSA meetings, these disciplines have been brought closer together. This workshop wants to continue the work in the successful political communication workshops at previous NOPSA meetings. It takes a starting point in the Nordic countries – focusing on new research agendas and changes in political communication – but is explicitly open for international scholars. The working language of the workshop will be English.

Jakob Ohme, Syddansk Universitet,
Erik Knudsen, Universitetet i Bergen,

You can apply by sending an email to by 15 January containing: a) the

paper title, b) a description of the research problem etc. of the paper (200-300 words) and, c) the

name(s) of the author(s), institutional affiliation and email address.

Back to overview ↑

8. Multiculturalism: political dynamics and conflicts


The workshop focuses on public debates, political conflicts and policies related to multiculturalism in general and in Scandinavia in particular. We welcome theoretical, empirical and case studies of the nature and forms of multiculturalism, and we encourage interdisciplinary approaches to deal with this multifaceted phenomenon. The primary target groups are political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists. We are primarily interested in:

  1. The nature and history of multiculturalism as a form of identity politics centred on cultural segregation, which focuses on normative discussions as well as the political dynamics of how and why it became institutionalised.
  2. Assessing the extent to which the multiculturalist rhetoric of equality and respect face up to reality or whether it has the opposite effects of strengthening intra-cultural forms of domination related to e.g. gender, sexual and generational conflicts and violence.
  3. The challenges, problems and ways of handling various aspects of integration on the labour market, the educational system and in society in general, and how they influence political attitudes and legislation.
  4. Discussions of the growing discrepancies between public opinion and the political establishment as shown in the declining trust in political authorities and the spread of far-right political parties as well as civil society based groups.
  5. The nature and scope of racist attitudes in European countries as well as in Muslim sub-communities and how it is dealt with among political decision makers, in public debates and in the universities.
  6. Assessing the consequences of multiculturalism: does it facilitate the integration of minorities or does it have the opposite effect? And how does it affect liberal-democratic political cultures in Europe with regard to, e.g. free speech and hate-speech legislation?

Torben Bech Dyrberg, Ph.D, lektor, Inst. for Samfund og Erhverv, 24.1, Roskilde Universitet, Universitetsvej 1, 4000 Roskilde, +45 4674 2524, mail:

Göran Adamson, Ph.D, docent i sociologi, Inst. för Individ och Samhälle, Högskolan Väst, +46 520 223738, mail:

Back to overview ↑

9. Public Management Reforms for Transboundary Policy Challenges:  Coordination for Integration, Crisis Organizing and Beyond.


This workshop examines public management reform, but applies it to new policy areas where cross-border challenges have emerged. The focus is on 'wicked issues' that are transboundary, complex and with high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity and where there is a miss-match between organizational structure and problem structure. Collaboration for policy formulation as well as for service delivery both internally in the public sector and with external stakeholders and users   are core interests. Possible policy areas are internal security and crisis management, immigration and integration, organization for climate change, the police etc. The traditional way of specialization by tasks, sector or purpose within the government apparatus is challenged and coordination issues become more up front. New reform initiatives such as whole-of-government, joined up-government, networked governance, and new public governance emerge to strengthen the integration within the government system, including its multi-level components (through EU, for example). The questions are: How has public management reform for transboundary policy challenges been formulated and implemented? How has the trade-off between specialization and coordination been addressed? Has anything been learned from previous public management reform efforts that can be used for transboundary policy challenges? What are the strategies for transboundary challenges used by reformers? What is the role of ICT and digital governance for transboundary challenges? How to balance the need for governance capacity and governance legitimacy? What kind of public value or effects are produced in these new policy areas?

This workshop is targeted towards researchers that work within the areas of public management reform and on transboundary policy challenges. We welcome researchers from all the Nordic countries as well as international participants. Papers that take a comparative perspective are particularly welcomed.

Workshop directors:
Professor Per Lægreid, University of Bergen: (Chair)
Professor Carsten Greve, Copenhagen Business School: (Vice-Chair)

Back to overview ↑

10. Politisk dynamik i Östeuropa: mellan yttre tryck och nationella spänningar


Länderna i Central- och Östeuropa står mitt i ett politiskt skeende som gäller den nationella politiska utvecklingen likväl som korstrycket mellan ett aggressivt Ryssland och ett krisande EU. Högernationalistiska och ickedemokratiska vindar blåser i länder som Polen och Ungern samtidigt som EU-systemet är under betydande press. Rysslands ockupation av Krim och indirekt av Donbass bidrar definitvt till det uppskruvade läget i hela regionen. Att påstå att det mesta är turbulent bland de postkommunistiska länderna är dock förenklat och schablonartat. Stabilitet och demokratisk kontinuitet med fungerande politiska institutioner och partier i flertalet länder är också framträdande drag efter snart tre decennier av nationell och politisk omvandling sedan Berlinmurens fall.

Arbetsgruppen har som mål att samla nordiska statsvetare med fokus på Central- och Östeuropa och välkomnar olika typer av analyser relaterat till den politiska utvecklingen i regionen. Länderjämförande och fallstudier, IR-orienterade ansatser, och teoretiskt såväl som empiriskt inriktade analyser välkomnas. Även mer omfattande länderjämförelser med relevanta kopplingar till de postkommunistiska länderna är önskvärda. Typiska fokusområden kan vara partier och partisystem, demokrati, regimförändring, politiska institutioner, specifika policyområden, internationella relationer, och EU-relaterade spörsmål.

Elisabeth Bakke, Førsteamanuensis
Institutt for statsvitskap, Universitetet i Oslo
Boks 1097 Blindern,
NO-0317 Oslo
+47 922 34 654

Biträdande gruppledare:
Thomas Sedelius, Docent i statsvetenskap
Högskolan Dalarna
SE-791 88 Falun, Sweden
+46 (0) 23 77 84 51

Back to overview ↑

11.Current challenges in health sector governance in Europe


The World Health Organization (WHO) refers to health sector governance as a wide range of steering and rule-making related functions carried out by governments/decisions makers as they seek to achieve national health policy objectives that are conducive to universal health coverage”. This workshop aims at shedding light on the key challenges regarding such “steering and rule-making related functions” that European (and Nordic) health sectors are currently facing. Four broad challenges can be mentioned: a) the economic crisis in Europe putting pressure on healthcare budgets, and the subsequent need for cost control and prioritization; b) trends of privatization and marketization of the health sector challenging traditional governance mechanisms used within publicly run health systems; c) increased EU competence in legislation and policies, which may challenge national sovereignty in health policy: examples are approval of medicines, free movement of healthcare workers, and regulation of cross-border care; and d) risks caused by epidemics (such as Ebola) and pandemics (such as swine flu) challenging the capacity and efficiency of disease prevention and control in Europe (and the world).

The working group welcomes any paper addressing such challenges, which may affect health sector governance in Europe – preferably with a focus on Nordic countries (cross-country studies are warmly welcomed). Experience from the implementation of major health system reforms, which can be related to at least one of the above mentioned challenges, will also be relevant.

Target groups:

Researchers (including PhD students) from political science, social sciences and from other relevant fields who are studying health policy-related issues with a particular focus on steering and governance.

The workshop can be seen as a follow-up to the workshop “Nordisk helsepolitikk” (Nordic health policy), which was organized during the XVII Nordic Political Science Congress at the University of Gothenburg in August 2014. Thus, one of the workshop’s intended functions is to contribute to a continuation and strengthening of the Nordic health policy network.

Liina-Kaisa Tynkkynen, PhD, Postdoctoral research fellow, Institute for Advanced Social Research, FI-33014 University of Tampere, Finland, Tel: +358 44 521 7569, e-mail: 

Frode Veggeland, PhD in Political Science, Professor, University of Oslo, Dep. of health management and health economics, Box 1089 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway, Phone: + 47 22 85 05 29, e-mail:

Back to overview ↑

12. Political Parties in the Age of Declining Party Membership


Most of contemporary democracies are party democracies in the meaning that political parties seek power through elections. They put forward candidates for office, present their political projects to the voters and pursue their adopted policies within representative institutions. Given the general decline in membership within political parties, however, the question is whether party democracy still works. It has been argued that the dominant mode of party decision-making today is leadership centered, media orientated, driven by professional electioneering and that previous bonds with interest groups are weakened. To what extent are party organizations today channels for citizens’ influence or a mere facade for elite and media politics? Does the party channel still have the potential to link voters with party elites; a task which requires members, at least some degree of representativity, some member activism, and that party elites are responsive towards member preferences.

This workshop welcomes quantitative and qualitative papers analyzing different topics related to party members, including reasons for joining and leaving the party, members’ policy and socio-demographic profiles, levels and types of activism, involvement in decision-making processes, and linkages with civil society and interest groups. The workshop will focus on Nordic and European party politics in particular and we welcome both single-case studies and comparative analyses. We will accept papers in both Scandinavian and English language.

Workshop leaders:
Anders Ravik Jupskås, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo,
Karina Kosiara-Pedersen, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen,

Back to overview ↑


13. Critical Engagement with Security: Securitization and Beyond


Security is a major state and societal concern. As such, there is a tendency to view security as a positive. Yet, the critical investigation of security has highlighted the negative sides that this powerful political tool also bears. Such studies have found that security for some easily translates as insecurity for others, that security practices and rationalities modulate democratic limits, and that a security rationale is not always the most appropriate means to deal with issues of concern. In this way, critical engagement with security has shown the power politics of speaking and doing security. The workshop explores security from such viewpoints, and discusses how the agenda of critical studies on security can be pushed forward.

We encourage papers that take stock of and further critical engagement with security. Papers can have a theoretical or an empirical focus. We encourage paper proposals from both established and emerging scholars.

Corresponding chairs:
Juha A. Vuori, University of Turku, Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History, and Political Science, Email:
Karen Lund Petersen, University of Copenhagen, Institut for Statskundskab, Email:

Back to overview ↑

14. The workings of political discourses


This section invites papers from the post-structuralist and anti/post-foundationalist approach to politics. Submissions may include case studies or theoretical work, or a combination of both. The papers may draw from a range of theoretical perspectives associated with the linguistic turn and poststructuralism (Foucault, Laclau, Mouffe, Derrida, Lacan, Rancière, Skinner, Freeden etc.).

The aim of the workshop is to highlight the workings and contents of political discourses, ideologies, hegemonic projects etc, in their contingent struggles and conflicts over the meaning and content of central social and political issues. Papers may approach this question in a variety of directions.

Theoretical questions could include for example the following: What is radical politics and/or democracy today? What is the (radical) political subject? Does populism constitute a specific political form? What, if anything makes discourses political? Are political ideologies and hegemonic projects constituted by demands, political concepts or something else?  Are there specific organisational forms – movements, the party form – linked to radical politics?

Empirically we welcome analyses of political ideologies and projects all across the spectrum: local protests, new types of parties, to analysis of new forms of populism, Podemos and Syriza but also Putin, Trump and Sanders; global, glocal or national issues of climate change, political and institutional change, and questions of democracy.

The language of the work-shop is in English.

Allan Dreyer Hansen, Roskilde University,

Vice chairs:
Charlotte Fridolfsson, Linköpings universitet,
Emilia Palonen, University of Helsinki,

Back to overview ↑


15. The future of global order between moral collapse and political instability


Scholars in international relations, but also in other related fields of social science, have begun sketching a ‘crisis’ or ‘moral collapse’ of global governance (Gill 2015), the failure of liberal cosmopolitanism (Dallmayr 2005) and inquiring into a possible alternative international order (Connolly 2011; Milbank 2005; Agathangelou & Killian 2016). This is seen as a formidable challenge by virtues and ontological assumptions embedded in global governance institutions as the result of long term processes, such as globalization. This is manifested by recent crises affecting, for example, global economic recession, European regional integration and cohesion (e.g. the refugee crisis and discussions on ‘Brexit’), transnational armed actors (e.g. ISIS), and challenges to diplomatic relations between the US, Europe, Russia and China (e.g., crises in Ukraine and Syria).

This workshop will explore a selected number of aspects of the ethical and political challenges to global governance through a series of thematic panels focusing on some classical concepts (e.g. sovereignty, citizenship, and intervention) with a view to critically assess changing practices and ethics of global governance. In so doing, the following questions will be addressed: Is a moral collapse really taking place? And if so, how is it affecting the global peace and security architecture? What international norms and the legitimacy of what actors are specifically being interrogated? What can we claim to know about an emerging (alternative?) international order? What role can the EU – and the Nordic Countries – play? Of what origin are the developing narratives (moral, political, theological) and policies that might re-enchant moral and political order?

The workshop targets scholars and practitioners working on international practices of global governance; international norms and laws; the changing nature of warfare; the protection of civilians (including international humanitarian law and Responsibility to Protect); migration; climate change; and European foreign and security policy.

Chiara De Franco (University of Southern Denmark), 
Linnéa Gelot (University of Gothenburg),

Back to overview ↑


16. Evaluation in the Public Sector


Evaluation is a systematic assessment of the merit of public policies, organizational change initiatives and other transformation features of the public sector.

As such, evaluation is a strong, yet contested activity in the public sector in the Nordic countries, and external consultants seem to be playing an increasingly important role. What is the role of political science, other social sciences, and external consultants in this field? How can evaluation be established and consolidated as a systematic field of enquiry within political science? We encourage contributions that address the role of evaluation in political science, as well as all types of theoretical and empirical contributions on evaluation of public policies and public administration in the Nordic countries. The workshop is open for political scientists, other academics, civil servants, consultants etc. with an interest in and experience of public sector evaluation.    

Thomas Bredgaard (associate professor, Ph.D.), Department of Political science, Aalborg University, Denmark (

Evert Vedung (professor emeritus), Uppsala University, Sweden (

Back to overview ↑


17. Representative democracy: Citizens, political elites and political systems.


The aim of this panel is to bring together and build a bridge between scholars working on different aspects of the quality and functioning of representative democracy.

There is a variety of literature in political science that concern, in one way or the other, the quality of representative democracy. Those are for example research on political support, corruption, electoral democracy, political participation, party politics, accountability and responsiveness of the political elite. In general, with a few exceptions1, research either focuses on citizens or the political elite, and our knowledge about the links (dynamic or else) there between is limited. The political system is of importance for both studies on political behaviour and attitudes of both citizens and the political elite. In this panel we invite empirically driven papers that examine quality of representative democracies, focusing on citizens, political elites and the political system. We invite papers that concern either one of those aspects, or focus on the link between them (citizens, political elites and political system).

E.g. Holmberg, S. 2011. Dynamic representation from above, in Rosema, M., Denters, B. and Aarts, K. (eds.) Meaning of Democracy: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies (pp.53-76). Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.

Eva H. Önnudóttir, Post-doctoral researcher, Department of Political Science, University of Iceland , Email: 

Gissur Erlingssson, Associate Professor, Department for Studies of Social Change / Culture (ISAK) / Centre for Municipality Studies (CKS), Linköping University, Email:

Back to overview ↑


18. Political Behaviour and its Social Structural Antecedents


The social structure of society is important both in the real world and in the academic field of political behaviour. Despite the discussions of the decline of class voting, class still persists as an important determinant of vote choice. Contrary to class, the importance of religion has not waned, and it seems to be increasing in importance in the US. While these traditional and major social structural antecedents of political behaviour are frequently studied, we know much less about other cleavages, such as the educational one or urban-rural residence.

We welcome papers with a social structural perspective on the study of political behaviour – i.e. not only vote choice, but also political trust, knowledge, attitudes or values. We accept studies of the demand side (e.g. citizens, voters) and the supply side (e.g. parties, politicians), as well as studies that combine the two perspectives. This workshop is thus well suited for anyone with an interest in social structure and political behaviour. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are welcome. The workshop will be chaired by Peter Egge Langsæther (PhD Fellow, Dep. Of Political Science, University of Oslo) and Mads Thau (PhD Fellow, Dep. Of Political Science, Aarhus University).

Peter Egge Langsæther¸PhD Fellow Department of Political Science, University of Oslo,

Mads Thau, Ph.d fellow. (Aarhus Universitet),

Back to overview ↑

19. The Politics of Inequality in Rich Democracies


A decade ago the task force on Inequality and American Democracy concluded “that rising economic inequality will solidify longstanding disparities in political voice and influence”, and encouraged to disentangle the relationship between politics and economic inequality further. Inequalities have increased in most European countries as well and similar calls have been made here. This workshop begins where the task force ended, and invites theoretical and/or empirical contributions dedicated to rigorous political analysis of the contemporary politics of inequality. Elucidating scientifically the extent to which “the political economy of the new gilded age” is congruent with long cherished and normatively uncontested democratic ideals of political equality presupposes solid research of at least three crucial links in the decision making chain.

First, it is necessary to explore systematically the formation of public preferences and public opinion toward policies with redistributive implications, levels of inequality and how this is related to political behavior. Do citizens worry that economic globalization and redistribution costs jobs; do dominating meritocratic beliefs work to justify economic inequality; and/or are middle-class people voting for anti-taxation parties based on cultural issues with the implication that redistributive efforts are not prioritized? Second; what is the role of elite level political actors such political parties, governments, organized interest groups and think tanks in redistributive policymaking. Are policies for example produced in response to the general electorate, or are large groups of voters ignored as a result of advantaged organized elites that roar with such a clarity that policymakers respond to their list of wishes? Third; how does policy design and streams of feedback shape incentives and political coalitions with consequences for subsequent decision making? Are the policies that increase economic inequality strengthening economic and political elites, whom are also the most knowledgeable and sophisticated political groups? And does this, by implication, lead to skewed responsiveness so that policy decisions aggravate already existing levels of inequality rather than reducing it?

These are some of the main questions to be covered by the papers in this workshop. The workshop is open to the application of all types of methodologies.

Michael Baggesen Klitgaard, Department of Political Science – University of Southern Denmark , 

Henning Finseraas, Institute for Social Research, Oslo,

Back to overview ↑

20. Political psychology


Political psychology is one of the most prolific subfields in political science. In recent years the inspiration from evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and personality psychology has yielded significant new insights about the sources of political behavior as well as the mechanisms through which biological and psychological antecedents influence these behaviors. The shared point of departure for these new strands of literature is that we have to look beyond traditional social and economic influences to get a more adequate understanding of the determinants of political behavior, and at the same time appreciate that situations and context condition the way psychological dispositions shape behaviors. This workshop welcome all contributions that engage these cross-disciplinary perspectives as well as the interplay between contexts and psychological sources of political behavior more generally. 

Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Syddansk Universitet,

Lasse Laustsen, Aarhus Universitet,
Sven Oskarssson, Uppsala Universitet,

Back to overview ↑

21. The whole world of welfare


The human concern for socio-economic well-being and income security is a global one. Yet research on the welfare state (i.e. the provision of income security and social services) has been bifurcated between the traditional Western welfare state literature and the more recent studies on social protection in the Global South. This bifurcation is partly due to the origins of Western welfare states during a modernisation process of industrialisation, secularisation and democratisation that seems ill fitting to understand the context of social policy development in the South. The bifurcation is also explained by a dominance of data for OECD countries with only recent developments to improve data collection on non-OECD countries. However, in many ways, this bifurcation limits our ability to explore the causes and consequences of welfare policies. Many questions regarding states’ provision of welfare seem equally relevant in both the Global North and South, and a move across the two worlds can highlight interesting similarities and offer new perspectives. For instance: While clientelistic behaviour is established as part of welfare policy delivery in many countries in the South, it is just as possible that clientelism affects welfare policy delivery in some OECD countries. And: is a welfare state in the OECD necessarily better in terms of providing income security – do citizens in the US receive better social security than citizens in Mauritius? Or, to give a final example: Recent policy expansion in the South relates to the introduction of conditional cash transfers, while in the North there has been a move towards a social investment strategy. However, the similarities and differences between these two broad strategies as well as diffusion across the North-South divide remain underexplored.

Thus, now the time has come to merge the two worlds and to examine the ‘whole world of welfare’. We invite papers that bridge the bifurcated literatures, for example by using Western welfare theories in a new context, by exploring Southern theories in OECD countries, and/or by studying countries in both the North and South. Themes could include, but are not limited to: welfare state theories, diffusion, clientelism, democracy, ethnicity, colonialism, war and state building, gender, non-state provision, and financing of welfare. Papers may have a theoretical/normative focus and/or centre on empirical analyses including large-N country comparisons, historical comparative analyses, and case studies.

Melike Wulfgramm, (SDU), 
Peter Starke (SDU),

Back to overview ↑

22. Writing the rules of 21st century trade: Parliamentary assertion, social mobilization, and deep integration


The premise of the proposed workshop is that the shift from tariff-exchange to rule-making deeply affects the politics of trade, with the European Union being one of the key proponents of this shift. The new deep trade agenda, we claim, thrusts new actors into the politics of trade, with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US marking a critical juncture in the changing politics of trade. Politicization brings to the analytic center not only the traditional focus on societal interests, but also the role of legislatures.  Although they have traditionally been portrayed as the losers in this expansion of global governance, legislatures around the world have recently begun asserting themselves in global affairs, including in trade policy, where executive actors have traditionally prevailed.  While we expect the European Parliament to play a pivotal role in the politics of deep integration, given its expanded powers in the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments are also likely to engage in these negotiations because of growing politicization of EU trade policy, but also the likelihood that the new generation of EU trade agreements will be mixed agreements. 

Bridging national and European contexts, European parliaments may seek to promote specific redistributive outcomes (policy-maker role); they may also shape the political reality of the negotiations, for example by invoking standards of accountability and legitimacy (interpreter role). In both these roles as ‘policy-makers’ and ‘interpreters’, European parliaments are likely to serve as the fulcrum of political mobilization by specific constituencies, citizen groups, and organized interests, thereby contributing significantly to the politicization of 21st-century trade policy. Finally, European parliaments may also act in concert with parliamentary actors in the negotiating countries to pursue substantive outcomes as well as define the political reality of 21st-century trade politics in line with established norms of parliamentary control and democratic legitimacy.

Targets: In this workshop, we invite paper proposals from scholars and practitioners exploring the various connections between parliamentary assertion and deep integration at the multiple levels of EU governance.  How have national parliaments and the European Parliament responded to deep integration, and what has motivated their engagement? How and to what extent do parliamentary institutions shape the advocacy and mobilization process of deep integration?  What impact does parliamentary assertion have on deep integration?  Although our focus is mainly on trade policy, we also invite papers comparing trade with other areas of deep integration.

Christilla Roederer-Rynning, University of Southern Denmark (
Guri Rosén, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo ( ). 
Finn Laursen, University of Southern Denmark,( )   

Back to overview ↑

23. Media Policy and Digitalization


Media policy constitutes a neglected sub-field of political sciences and has, traditionally, been relegated to the realms of media studies. However, since it concerns itself with structures that support and regulate democracy, freedom of expression, and public participation, and since it is of increasing interest to policy-makers on both national and super-national levels, it is an area that could also be of interest for the political-science community.

This workshop proposes an occasion for starting such a conversation and fertilizing the ground for increased integration of media policy in the political sciences. Issues of media policy have become pertinent in recent years as technological and social development reconfigures the object of this policy area. So, the workshop will focus particularly on the challenges that digitalization poses to media policy and the questions that it raises. These challenges include but are not confined to (1) how traditional media markets such as broadcasters and the press increasingly converge on digital media, challenging the regulatory frameworks and subsidy systems put in place by policy-makers; (2) how digital intermediaries such as Google and Facebook are central actors in citizens’ media use but transgress the tools of the same policy-makers; and (3) the extent to which one can even distinguish between “media policy” and other policy areas such as cultural policy, policies of infrastructure (telecommunications), and trade/business policy.

Other empirical and/or theoretical issues with relation to media policy and digitalization are welcome as well.

Drawing upon the budding research environment around media-policy issues, this NoPSA workshop will constitute the 2017 iteration of the biannual event The European Symposium on Media Policy.

Aske Kammer (The IT University of Copenhagen,

Vilde Schanke Sundet (Lillehammer University College,

Back to overview ↑

24. Demokratisk fremgang og tilbagegang uden for vesten


Mange lande er blevet demokratiske i den tredje demokratibølge, nogle har været resistente overfor vestligt demokratipres og andre er faldet tilbage til en autoritær styreform. Hvorfor klarer nogle lande at holde fast i demokrati, mens andre giver efter for autoritære tendenser? Hvad er det disse lande har at stå imod med, hvis demokratiet er under pres, som andre lande mangler? Er det i virkeligheden fraværet af skadelige faktorer der gør, at demokratiet slår solide rødder eller har disse lande et bolværk mod tilbagegang? 

Workshoppen fokuserer på hvilke faktorer, der muliggør og begrænser at lande uden for vesten demokratiserer og fastholder en demokratisk styreform. Det kan være strukturelle betingelser eller politisk-økonomiske faktorer, som begrænser og muliggør forandring og fastholdelse men vi er også nysgerrige på bedre at forstå hvilke sociale kræfter som driver processen frem, hvordan de gør det og om det kræver en særlig institutionel eller organisatorisk platform (fx civil samfund og politiske partier, valg og valgsystemer, arenaer i staten). Vi ser gerne bidrag, som bygger analyser på orginale data (egen survey/eksperiment/intervju/fokus data). Vi håber at bidrag på workshoppen gør os klogere på succesfulde og forfejlede demokratiseringer i den tredje bølge samt kaster lys på mulighederne for succeslfuldt demokrati fx efter det arabiske forår.

Forskning har vist, at eksterne aktører kan være med til at fremtvinge valg og demokrati hvor det ikke fandtes i forvejen, men med andre bagtanker kan støtte fra andre lande også føre til demokratisk tilbagegang eller ligefrem hjælpe diktatorer med at blive ved magten. Den rette indretning af valgsystemer kan være afgørende for udfaldet af valg og hvorvidt det fører til demokratisk stabilitet eller tilbagegang. Anden forskning har vist, at styrken af partier, som kæmper om vælgeres gunst ved valg er afgørende for demokratiets robusthed, mens (for) stærke partier kan drive autoritære styreformer. Kun hvor civil samfundet spiller sammen med partier har stærke partier en gunstig virkning på demokrati. På den anden side, hvis civilsamfundet er stærkt og partierne svage, kan det underminere en demokratisk styreform. Måske var det kun muligt for andre lande at gennemtvinge demokrati, indrette det ‘gode’ valgsystem, forstre partier med det rette modspil fra civilsamfundet, hvis et land havde særligt mange missionærer under kolonialiseringen, fik den rette injektion af britiske tanker, værdier og institutioner - alt sammen faktorer som bidrag til at skabe en stat, der kan eksekvere efter på demokratiske valg. Modsat kan lige netop tidlig statsdannelse have forhindret gunstige faktorer i at slå rødder og føre til at lande i dag (stadig) er underlagt en autokratisk styreform. Men under hvilke betingelser er internationalt pres en fordel for demokrati, og hvornår fører det til tilbagegang? Under hvilke betingelser kan valgsystem have gode virkninger på demokrati? Hvad kendetegner tilpas stærke partier med de rette bånd til civilsamfundet? Og er der ’dybereliggende’ faktorer, som i virkeligheden betinger muligheder og begrænsninger for at mere nære faktorer kan have en gunstig indvirkning på demokrati?

Lise Rakner , Professor, Universitetet i Bergen, Institutt for sammenliknende politikk, Christiesgt. 15, Bergen, Norge, e-mail:, Tlf. +47 55 58 90 75
Michael Aagaard Seeberg, Adjunkt, Syddansk Universitet, Institut for Statskundskab, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, e-mail:, Tlf: +45 6550 2171

Back to overview ↑

25. Collaboration and power

Politico-administrative changes are increasingly characterized by the introduction of collaborative multi-organisational structures. Collaboration captures a specific process or policy where various actors from different public, private (or public/private hybrids) and/or civil society organizations combine capacities, recourses and expertise with a common goal. In political science these changes are debated in different fields and on different levels of analysis, related both to the level of the organisation, but also to broader institutional changes in relation to new public management, governance, or the “neo-Weberian state”.  

The explicit purpose and ambition of collaboration is, in its most simplified sense, to attain goals that exceed the capabilities of organizations/actors acting individually: In this regard collaboration is not only a “buzz-word”, it also has a strong normative undertone, especially within policy fields such as innovation or regional development.

Despite the recent upsurge of debates in relation to collaboration, the power-dimensions of collaboration as both a empirical and a theoretical concept are still neglected or underdeveloped. Previous studies of related concepts such as partnerships, projects and networks have indicated democratic challenges in terms of transparency, accountability and inclusion, while others instead see changes as positive in terms of the inclusion of civil society organisations and its strong emphasis on local adaptability. In this panel we aim to raise and discuss questions pertaining to the how, who and where of governing collaboration, regarding both the governing of collaboration and governing in collaboration. Other questions include the effects on local self government and democracy; how bureaucracy is effected by the delegation of politics to collaborative structures as well as questions regarding if collaboration entails more or less autonomy for the civil servants involved in these practices. We welcome papers that engage in the study of power and collaboration both in relation to empirical changes, but also in a more theoretical or conceptual sense.

Workshop  leaders

- Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren (Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Lunds universitet, Sverige),

- Stefan Sjöblom,  (Professor i kommunalforskning, Helsingfors universitet, Finland)