The collapse of European communism two decades ago appeared to determine, once and for all, the fate of radical socialism in the modern world and to draw a line under the forty years of Cold War that had now ended. In an overview of both the course and end of this global confrontation, and of the legacy of communism itself, this article argues that many of the analytical and social dimensions of the Cold War have still to be adequately addressed, and that, while traditional Marxism has indeed been discredited, the need for critical and, where pertinent, utopian thinking remains as relevant as ever.

This article examines levels of interest and trust among the public in relation to Northern Ireland's newly established political institutions and actors, through an analysis of the results of the 2007 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT). It is important to reveal the specific groups of people with the highest levels of political disenchantment, particularly in the context of the longer-term stability of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, since the willingness of the electorate to have faith and trust in the workability of these political institutions and in the various political actors in whose custody they lie is considered vital.

As described by T. H. Marshall sixty years ago, the Western itinerary to modern democracy and the welfare state followed the sequence of civil, political and social citizenship rights. We demonstrate that Marshall's sequence is no longer the prevalent one in the developing and transformation countries of the contemporary era. Instead, political rights are generally at least as effective as civil liberties which are at least as effective as social rights. This new sequencing is attributable to the combination of ‘liberal hegemony’ and inauspicious structural constraints. More generally, our results suggest that the historical route to liberal democracy and the welfare state – beginning with liberal constitutionalism – is unlikely in today's world.

This introduction to the special issue provides an exploration of the scholarly analysis of Jim Bulpitt's Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation. It first addresses the principal theoretical concerns and the historical interpretation that Bulpitt pursued in Territory and Power. It discusses the main lines of criticism that have been laid against the book and how in turn these have been rebutted. The article then assesses how the contributions made in this special issue provide fresh reflection on the book's contribution to the study of UK and comparative politics before suggesting how Territory and Power could shape the agenda of future research.

Semi-presidentialism is the situation where a constitution makes provision for both a directly elected fixed-term president and a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to the legislature. A common argument against the adoption of a semi-presidential constitution by a new democracy is the problem of cohabitation – where a president from one party holds power at the same time as a prime minister from an opposing party and where the president's party is not represented in the cabinet. The concern is that cohabitation creates competing power centres within the executive that are dangerous for young democracies. This article shows that cohabitation has been directly associated with the collapse of a young democracy in only one case. Moreover, by specifying the conditions under which cohabitation can occur, we also show that the threat of cohabitation has been associated with collapse in only one further case. We suggest that this is so because cohabitation refers to a very specific situation that can only occur under a certain combination of circumstances that can often be avoided. Overall, we show that there is little evidence to support one of the most well-known and long-standing arguments against semi-presidentialism. Thus, while semi-presidentialism may indeed be perilous for new democracies, we conclude that it is perilous for reasons other than the problem of cohabitation.

The True Finn Party (PS), which gained virtually 10 per cent of the national vote at the 2009 European Parliament election, lacks a place in the comparative party literature and also defies ready classification. It has been perceived by its supporters as the most left-wing of the non-socialist parties; by Finnish media commentators as a case of right-wing populism; and by researchers as a distinctive centred-based populist party when viewed in a wider European perspective. Based on a careful study of its programmatic output since its inception in 1995, this article seeks to characterize the PS by reference to its core ideological features. It argues that it is in fact a populist radical right party – with national identity or Finnishness as its pivotal concept – albeit without the xenophobic extremism of such continental counterparts as the Danish People's Party or Austrian Freedom Party.

This article addresses the relative neglect of Territory and Power in informing the study of general state political development, both as a theoretical approach and in its application to the UK. It locates Territory and Power as a distinct contribution to two major schools of comparative research. The first section argues that Territory and Power provided an approach that was part of the intellectual turn during the 1980s to bring the state back into the analysis of politics. The second part argues that Territory and Power should be seen also as a contribution to the intellectual turn since the 1980s towards temporal analysis of political development. On these bases future researchers may find Territory and Power more accessible as a work that they can incorporate in their own research.

In the mid-1990s, Canadian scholarship introduced an important distinction between historically incorporated national minorities and ethnic groups emerging from recent immigration. While the former may be accommodated through federal or multinational arrangements, multiculturalism has come to describe a normative framework of immigrant integration. The distinction between these analytically different types of movements is crucial for Taylor's and Kymlicka's influential theories, but the relations between different types of national and ethnic struggles for rights and recognition have remained unexplored in much of the subsequent scholarly literature. This article starts from a theoretical position where different types of diversity are viewed as highly interdependent in practice. Tracing the trajectories of multiculturalism in three different countries, the article aims to identify common patterns of how changing relations between traditionally incorporated groups affect public perceptions of and state responses to more recent immigration-induced diversity. More specifically, it asks the following question: to what extent does the absence (in Germany), discontinuation (in the Netherlands) and exacerbation (in Canada) of claims on ethnocultural grounds by traditionally incorporated groups influence the willingness of the national majority/ies to grant multicultural rights to immigrants?

This article assesses Bulpitt's treatment of the centre or central state. It begins by reviewing Bulpitt's argument that the UK centre elite developed a detached style of territorial management and recognized the limits to the state's power. The argument is that the elite at the centre sought to avoid the costs of intervention in the periphery so it could retain its autonomy over decisions affecting the economy and international affairs. The article then assesses Bulpitt's claims against extant evidence from the study of UK politics. It concludes that, in spite of Bulpitt's failure to appreciate the interest of the centre in the detail of local administration, the account holds up surprisingly well and could be adopted as a comparative framework for analysing how central elites seek to keep their grip on power by managing territorial politics successfully.

This article examines how the Finnish Social Democratic Party has adapted to European integration. The analysis illustrates that the Social Democrats have successfully argued to their electorate that the objectives of integration are compatible with core social democratic values. Considering that Finland was hit by a severe recession in the early 1990s, discourse about economic integration and monetary stability facilitating the economic growth that is essential for job creation and the survival of domestic welfare state policies sounded appealing to SDP voters. Determined party leadership, support from trade unions and the lack of a credible threat from the other leftist parties have also contributed to the relatively smooth adaptation to Europe. However, recent internal debates about the direction of party ideology and poor electoral performances – notably in the European Parliament elections – indicate that not all sections within the party are in favour of the current ideological choices.

Politics and gender scholarship is increasingly seeking to understand the relationship between the presence of women in politics and gendered policy outcomes – the substantive representation of women (SRW). Yet its focus remains squarely on the activities of ‘critical actors’ in parliaments and women's policy agencies and on ‘feminist’ rather than ‘mainstream’ policy areas. In contrast, this article investigates the impact of feminist actors in a range of institutional settings on recent processes of welfare reform in the UK. It finds that the gendered welfare reform introduced by New Labour was initiated and pushed through by a coalition of committed feminist actors across a range of institutions. Crucially, the reforms relied on the existence of ‘strategic actors’ and ‘gate openers’, defined as feminist actors in positions of significant institutional power. It makes a contribution to the actor-centred SRW scholarship, develops an institutionalist approach to this research and identifies the need for a political economy perspective to understanding how women can shape policy outcomes.

Comparing eight post-communist semi-presidential systems (Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Ukraine and Russia), comprising a total of 65 instances of intra-executive coexistence between 1991 and 2007, this article asks to what extent and in what ways president–cabinet conflicts increase the risk of cabinet instability. Previous studies of intra-executive conflicts in semi-presidential regimes have mainly been occupied with explaining why conflicts occur in the first place, and have neglected the question of how such conflicts are actually related to political outcomes. The present empirical investigation demonstrates that the occurrence of intra-executive conflict in transitional semi-presidential systems is likely to produce high rates of cabinet turnover.

Jim Bulpitt understood the UK as an eminently political creation, emphasizing the role of elites in managing diversity. He can be criticized for underplaying the ideology of union, for dismissing Labour unionism and for an excessively central and Tory perspective. His insights, however, remain useful in analysing the current collapse of unionism, if not of the Union itself. His key concept of central autonomy explains why current neo-unionist efforts to forge Britishness are unlikely to succeed, since they imply a stronger territorial articulation of the state itself.

This article argues that the Turkish economic elite – represented by the Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD) – has preserved its liberal democratic stance despite tensions between the religious Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the secularist establishment. Although secular itself, large business maintained a moderate position in the conflict and has continued to push for democratization thanks, in part, to organizational factors that ensure consistency in the larger goals of the association. The article thus claims that studying business as organization rather than business as capital can help the comparative literature understand how entrepreneurs' commitment to democracy under capitalism can become long term.

This study explores how a party's organizational mode affects its stability in new democracies. A party organization was stable under these three conditions: when the relationship from lower to upper organizations has institutionalized a strong vertical organization mode; when the central party power is concentrated on the leadership; and when the leadership has been safely shifted after elections. In the case of two ruling parties in South Korea, each mode produced differences in party stability. The dissimilar organization modes of two parties resulted in different organizational stability.

During times of violent conflict, states may closely scrutinize the loyalty of those who lead minority religious communities. November 2005 saw elections for Islamic councils in Thailand's three southern border provinces. The Muslim-majority subregion had experienced escalating political violence since January 2004. Allegations of electoral manipulation were rife; the elections were proxy struggles between the Thai state and potential opponents. This article positions these elections within wider debates about the nature of the relationship between Islam and the state, in Thailand and beyond. It argues that politicizing Islamic organizations may be a dangerous game for states and elite actors to play.

This article addresses Jim Bulpitt's innovative approach to conceptualizing the relationship between the external realm and domestic politics in Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. The first part draws out the argument that Bulpitt made about the relationship between the external world and domestic politics to explain the historical development of the UK's territorial politics. In doing so, it fleshes out Bulpitt's own account. It also adds empirical detail and integrates arguments from his later work on the Thatcher governments into his analysis of where the UK's territorial politics went after the early 1980s. Second, the article demonstrates how Bulpitt's analytical framework about the external–domestic political relationship can help us make sense of another state's territorial politics at a crucial historical moment, namely Weimar Germany and the Bavarian problem between 1919 and 1924.