Högskolan Dalarnas logga och länk till högskolans webbplats

This study examines the relationship between citizens' satisfaction with government COVID-19 communication and management (SWCCM) and institutional trust. By employing a longitudinal approach, using three-wave panel data from Sweden from 2020 to 2022, the study addresses the current lack of research on the interplay between SWCCM and institutional trust across different stages of a societal crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. The results show that SWCCM increased slightly over the pandemic period, while trust in institutions slightly decreased. The study also finds that changes in SWCCM predict changes in trust in institutions, suggesting that increased satisfaction with communication and management is associated with increased trust in institutions. Additionally, we find that higher initial levels of SWCCM contribute to a faster decline in trust over time. However, no evidence supports the idea that initial trust in institutions predicts changes in SWCCM. This suggests a unidirectional relationship where SWCCM is a key driver of institutional trust during a crisis. Overall, the study uncovers intriguing dynamics in the relationship between SWCCM and trust over time, and it emphasizes the significance of effective and consistent communication and management in maintaining and boosting public trust during crisis.

Following Russia's invasion, Ukraine exemplifies presidential leadership during full-scale war. This study examines executive coordination from Zelenskyi's mid-2019 election to the February 2022–July 2023 war period, using media sources and official data. It introduces three new leadership models – figurehead-leader, arbiter-management and leader-implementer – to capture evolving intra-executive relations in semi-presidential systems. Power centralisation around the president has accelerated, fitting the leader-implementer model. However, in accordance with the arbiter-manager model, a stricter division of labour, especially in domestic policy, is evident. Despite semi-presidentialism's perceived conflict-proneness, the study shows it can function efficiently and allow executive flexibility during significant crisis.

Varför utvecklas vissa länder men inte andra till väl fungerande demokratier? Är det ekonomisk utveckling, en viss uppsättning institutioner, en gynnsam medborgarkultur, civilsamhället, stödjande internationella förutsättningar eller samarbetande politiska eliter som avgör? Kan alla länder i världen bli demokratier, eller är vissa stater dömda att för alltid styras av auktoritära regimer?I denna uppdaterade tredje upplaga av Demokratiseringsprocesserpresenteras och granskas de viktigaste teoretiska och empiriska bidragen inom forskningen om demokratiseringsprocesser. Författarna introducerar centrala begrepp som demokrati, modernisering, transition, konsolidering och diffusion, samt visar hur forskningen har utvecklats från den tidiga efterkrigstiden fram till idag. Även demokratins tillbakagång och olika varianter av samtida auktoritära styrelseskick diskuteras. Boken inleds med ett förord av professor Li Bennich-Björkman.Demokratiseringsprocesser är särskilt lämplig för kurser i statsvetenskap, sociologi, internationella relationer, utvecklingsstudier, Europastudier samt freds- och konfliktforskning.

This article seeks to explain variations in presidential activism in semi-presidential countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa is one of the continents where semi-presidentialism is most prevalent, but the dynamics of intra-executive relations are severely understudied. The four case studies discussed here—the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Cabo Verde, and São Tomé e Príncipe—belong to the premier-presidential subtype. In this exploratory study, we aim to examine how institutional dimensions of premier-presidentialism interact with contextual factors to explain variations in presidential activism among Sub-Saharan African countries. In addition to fundamental contextual differences among the two pairs of countries, francophone and lusophone, there are specific institutional factors associated with the design and operation of premier-presidentialism that contribute to greater presidential activism in the two francophone cases. Taken together, these contextual and institutional factors skew effective executive power heavily toward the president in our francophone countries. We also find that the degree of political institutionalization matters for the impact of presidential activism on intra-executive conflict and government policymaking capacity. The article increases our understanding of the operation of semi-presidentialism in this understudied region, underscoring the importance of both contextual and constitutional factors for explaining variations in presidential activism in Africa.

The Baltic presidents have in common that they are supposed to embody the ‘nation’ and to provide an image of their countries abroad. But can the president embody the people if “the people” itself is divided? In this paper, we will focus on public trust in the presidency between the majority and minority population in the Baltic states. Drawing on public opinion surveys, the aim is to examine the determinants of public trust in the presidential institution and support for the performance and principles of the political system as well identification with the political community itself. Among our findings, we conclude that ethnic or linguistic identity explains trust to a considerable degree, which suggests that trust is not only an expression of specific political support but also part of a more deep-seated, diffuse support.

Very few studies have systematically examined going-public tactics in semi-presidential systems. Previous research from presidential systems in the US and Latin America shows that such public strategies often work in favour of the presidents. This paper focuses on the link between presidents’ going-public tactics and intra-executive conflicts in three European semi-presidential regimes. Drawing on both primary and secondary data on president-cabinet relations and intra-executive conflicts, including expert interviews, we examine how presidents in Finland, Lithuania, and Romania vested with relatively weak constitutional powers use informal strategies of going public to increase their influence on government and policy. Our study confirms that during intra-executive conflict, the deliberate strategy of public grandstanding often benefits the presidents but is moderated particularly by shared norms about the role of the presidency among the political elites.

Based on a comparative case study design including Lithuania, Romania, and Finland as a long–lasting case of European semi–presidentialism, this chapter addresses the interaction between executive power and the citizens in the context of accountability. By examining the conditions and implications of ‘going–public’ tactics used by ten presidents in these three countries, the author is especially interested in to what extent the president’s (perceived) popular legitimacy impedes and even outplays formal constitutional power in intra–executive relations between the president and prime minister. A guiding assumption is that the impact of the president’s ‘going–public’ strategies are conditioned by formal constitutional powers, unified or divided government (cohabitation), the president’s influence over his or her party, and by the prevailing norms among the political elites about the president’s role in the political system. The author uses both primary and secondary data on president–cabinet relations and intra–executive conflict, including expert interviews, to examine a number of intra–executive confrontations over the period from the early 1990s until 2019.

This study maps the general lines of semi-presidential research with regard to theory, topics and methods. It identifies research gaps and provides recommendations for future studies. The review includes a general screening of 327 publications covering the period 1970–2015, and a close reading of sixty-five selected publications. The findings suggest that the inconsistent use of regime type definitions has limited the possibilities for generalizations. The study tracks the influence of some seminal articles, as well as the recent trend of focusing on the role and powers of the president. The article calls for more studies beyond Europe, and suggests that the field would benefit from including Historical and Normative Institutionalism. Finally, it suggests the need for studies on public administration that are relevant to the functioning of semi-presidential government.