Independent central banks have come to invest increasingly in two-way engagement with citizens. Yet, we know little about whether any ‘learning’ takes place at the side of the organisations. As they are insulated from political and public preferences, central banks are unlikely to follow citizen input in their policy choices. Yet, it is possible that their agendas take into account societal issue priorities.

Investing in state capacity presents a dilemma to politicians in developing democracies. While increased capacity can facilitate social and economic advancement, steps that enhance state capacity often result in decreased bureaucratic loyalty. Decreased loyalty can constrain politicians’ ability to use the state to satisfy their personal and political goals. Faced with the above dilemma, I argue that politicians engage in a mixed strategy in which they invest in bureaucratic capacity while retaining tools to enforce (individual) bureaucratic loyalty when needed.

While persistence and change have long been central in the study of politics, we do not yet fully understand the criteria by which claims of persistence can be made. What is the dividing line between continuity with the past and change from the past? This paper addresses that question through an examination of how social scientists discuss and assert persistence of social phenomena even in the presence of change. It identifies different logics of persistence, each of which specifies a different set of criteria for distinguishing between identity-preserving and identity-destroying change.

More than a year after Russia’s unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainians remain committed to Ukrainian victory and optimistic about the country’s future despite significant hardships. According to NDI polling, 89 percent of Ukrainians report being optimistic about Ukraine’s future. Ukrainians remain resolute and united, and it is clear that Russia’s strategy to divide the country, undermine its resilience, and erode its Western ties has proven a failure.

These are tumultuous times, yet again: populists challenging democratic norms everywhere, a pandemic upending lives and supply chains, a senseless war on Europe’s doorsteps, and global warming threatening our very planet. What makes understanding our present so challenging is its constantly changing and hence historical nature. History not only transforms our world but also our research agendas. History thus requires close attention.

A moderated panel discussion on UN peacekeeping transitions in light of recent empirical evidence and analysis provided by Prof. Andrea Ruggeri and Dr. Maline Meiske.

Panellists:
Andrea Ruggeri, Professor of Political Science and International Relations and Coordinator Conflict, Peace and Security Hub University of Oxford,

This paper draws upon research relating to the development of ideologies and practices relating to anti-racism in Australia. Since the advent of multiculturalism in the 1970s, following the abolition of the White Australia policy, race has periodically appeared as a subject of intense political contest.

*Joint work with Milan Svolik (Yale University), Johanna Lutz (Friedrich Ebert Foundation) and Filip Milacic (Friedrich Ebert Foundation) *