The Americanization of European Political Science

For fourth time, this year the American Political Science Association (APSA) annual meeting and the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) conference will be held almost at the same time, by late August and early September. This coincidence in the calendar occurs every two years since the ECPR adopted the formula of a General Conference in 2001. Some people can attend both the APSA and the ECPR meetings by traveling intensively, but others have chosen to alternate one year each. It took a long time to the ECPR to adopt the model of a conference based on multiple series of two-hour panels. For almost thirty years its main gathering was the annual Joint Sessions of Workshops, formed by a number of separate small groups, with 10 to 20 people, each meeting for four days. A typical comment was that if you were cleaver or lucky on choosing your workshop you could take great benefit from it, but otherwise you risked wasting your time. In contrast, with the conference formula the menu is broad and open to different interests.

This is just one minor but significant aspect of European political science following formulas previously developed in America. Actually the very creation of the European Consortium for Political Research was to a significant extent an American enterprise. As the story is told by Jean Blondel, one of the founding fathers of the ECPR, the idea to promote a model of “Americanized” political science in Europe was conceived as a synonymous for “modernization”. This was in contrast to the Parisian model at the Institute d’Etudes Politiques, better known as Sciences-Po, “which does not actively deserve its name since it is concerned only to a limited extent with what is conventionally regarded as political science in most parts of the world”. It was Blondel (born French but at the time at Essex, UK), together with Rudolf Wildenmann (at Manheim, Germany), Hans Daalder (at Leiden, the Netherlands), and Stein Rokkan (at Bergen, Norway), who undertook the initiative. “It was in New York city, in the magnificent glass Ford Foundation building, that the European Consortium was born, in the late spring of 1970”. Again in Blondel’s words, “only Americans, with their funds, but also with their skills in research management, could bring together a ‘representative’ body of European political scientists”.

The aim of the ECPR was to develop networks, exchanges and the building of a Europe-wide intellectual community following the American model. The Essex summer school, for instance, was essentially devoted to data analysis on the Michigan model. Also a European journal was launched, initially edited by Arend Lijphart (then at Leiden but later moved to California). Twenty five years later, Blondel estimated that the ECPR had not achieved “all the goals which some founders had in mind, those who wished European political science to become, if not first, at least a very close second”. During the last ten years, however, the ECPR has experienced increasing membership, the creation of numerous standing groups (equivalent to APSA ‘sections’ on different subfields), as well as of several summer schools and journals, and the adoption of the more lively formula of General Conference, which help stay pursuing that goal.

Reference

Jean Blondel’s story and reflections on the development of European political science during the 1960s and 1970s was published with the suggestive title ‘Amateurs into professionals’. It’s contained in the collective book edited by Hans Daalder, Comparative European Politics: The Story of a Profession (Pinter Publishers, 1997). To see it: CLICK

Institutional connections:

American political science at APSA: CLICK

European political science at ECPR: CLICK

COMMENTS

Alex Guerrero said...

And, obviously, the Americanization of the European Political Science goes far beyond the management of the professional gatherings. The real proof that the ECPR is only a second best to APSA is that the discipline is still divided in "Political Theory", "Political Economy", "Comparative Politics" and "American Politics". When will we see a "European Politics" sub-branch in the discipline?

Yale University


James Caporaso said...

Dear Dr. Colomer

I think you are absolutely right about the Americanization of European PS. One indicator is that the numberof manuscripts submitted by Europeans to American journals has escalated dramatically. I am the editor of Comparative Political Studies. Last year I believe we had over 70 manuscripts from outside the US, most from Europe. This year out of the first 100 manuscripts submitted, 49 were from outside the US. This is not just limited to t he UK and Northern Europe.

When I tell Europeans about this they are not surprised. They tell me that their universities are moving to an American model; one thing that means is more refereed articles, US style

Jim Caporaso

University of Washington

Laia Balcells said...

Very interesting article. One of the advantages of going to both conferences (and hence, travel intensively) -for those of us who are crazy enought to do it- is that, at least, we will be able to compare these "two worlds" very closely. Not sure about what to expect.

Laia Balcells

PhD Candidate at Yale University

Rein Taagepera said...

I am not aware of any other scientific discipline carrying out its yearly meeting as a series of workshops.
Just imagine physicists or biologists coming together to run a series of joint experiment workshops for a week...

Rein