Depending on what levels of government and actors in a political system one focuses upon, democratic innovations might seem thriving or waning. This emerges clearly when looking at the main trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy. Compared to other liberal democracies, at the national level, Italy is a laggard; yet, a more dynamic landscape of democratic innovations exists at the local level. Some regions have drafted pioneering legislation institutionalising participatory and deliberative practices and numerous councils have adopted participatory innovations, early and consistently over time. Going beyond institutions, social movements have also been very influential with activists developing their own democratic innovation repertoires, which was especially clear in the movement for the commons. Positive and negative trajectories of democratic innovation may coexist across different actors (e.g., governments and civil society.) and levels of government in Italy. However, when these actors enter in contact with each other, state institutions might use democratic innovations against democratic engagement. We reflect on the implications of this situation for future trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy.

Democratic innovations have gained popularity in Finland, especially during the last 15 years, at the national and subnational level. However, research on Finnish democratic innovations is still fragmented, focusing on isolated methods, case studies, and experiments. Our article aims to provide a first comprehensive outlook of the diffusion of democratic innovations in Finland. From the 1980s onwards, we identify five legislative milestones that illustrate the gradual institutionalisation of various innovations. Furthermore, we trace the historical roots of three sets of innovations – direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics – and describe their scope and patterns of dissemination. Our inspection shows that democratic innovations have created truly novel channels for citizen influence, but their impact varies greatly. While policymakers still have doubts of citizens’ competences, our analysis suggests a growing role for democratic innovations in Finnish politics, supported by their institutionalisation as well as pragmatic adaptation.

This paper traces and assesses the trajectories of democratic innovations (DIs) in Germany across levels of governance and over time since 1990, providing novel and original data. We focus on three types of DIs that have been applied in Germany: direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics (DMPs). DIs proliferated differently across the different levels of governance (local, state, and federal), with shifting peaks in popularity and differing evolutions in process design and regulations. Going beyond description, this paper discusses the trajectories of DIs by applying a theoretical framework based, firstly, on Elstub and Escobar’s concept of DIs as providing opportunities for citizens (in participation, deliberation, and influence) and, secondly, on Warren’s system-oriented approach on democratic functions (these being empowered inclusion, collective will-formation, and collective decision-making). This framework provides a useful tool for analysing how the trajectories of DIs in Germany have affected citizens’ opportunities. Combined, these trajectories show a movement towards opportunities for inclusive participation, deliberation, and will-formation of a few citizens in DMPs, rather than opportunities for empowered participation or influence on political agendas and decisions.

Digital technologies provide a novel environment for political activities and, more specifically, for interactions between citizens and political actors. The scholarly literature on these topics is flourishing. On the one hand, studies of political communication emphasise the changing nature of election campaigns and the reshaped relationship between leaders and supporters. On the other hand, the literature on political parties examines the organisational implications of such a digital shift in more detail. Against this backdrop, this study investigates the opinions and participatory attitudes of party members towards the new digital participation opportunities that their party organisations provide. To do so, we rely on original individual survey data. More specifically, we will use data derived from a survey administered to Partito Democratico members in Italy at the beginning of 2022 (approximately 4000 respondents). Precisely, we aim to identify the profiles of party members according to their (degree of) digital activities by controlling for variables such as length of membership, levels of intraparty activism, and evaluation of intraparty democracy. Moreover, we investigate the changing relationship between members and their party organisations in the new digital ecosystem.

The global rise of deliberative democratic innovations, particularly minipublics such as citizens’ assemblies and deliberative polls, has been marked by uneven adoption across advanced democracies. While some countries have integrated these mechanisms into their democratic frameworks, others remain hesitant, raising questions about the institutional conditions that facilitate or hinder their adoption. This study employs qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to examine how configurations of three key institutional dimensions – consensus democracy, federalism, and direct democracy – shape the adoption of minipublics. Our findings reveal that minipublics are more likely to be adopted in majoritarian systems with strong federalism and limited direct democracy, where they address participatory gaps. Conversely, systems combining high consensus democracy and extensive direct democratic mechanisms, such as Switzerland, often exhibit lower adoption rates, as existing power-sharing structures fulfil similar deliberative functions.

This article examines the divergent trajectories of democratic innovations in Australia and contextualises the institutional constraints on efforts to revise and improve traditional mechanisms of political participation and decision-making. Adopting a broad definition of democratic innovations as interfaces between citizens and government designed to enhance citizen participation, it distinguishes between two main types: electoral (vote-centric) and deliberative (voice-centric) innovations. While Australia is often recognised as a global pioneer in electoral innovations, experimentation with deliberative democratic reform at the federal level remains rare and sporadic. This article identifies two contextual features that help explain the limited pathways for embedding deliberative innovations into national governance: first, the adversarial and non-deliberative nature of the Westminster-inspired majoritarian system of government and, second, the enduring influence of Australia’s settler-colonial status. Together, these factors sustain a political culture that tends towards non-listening. The article suggests ways to counter these factors by drawing insights and inspiration from creative community innovations emerging in Australia.

This paper is in line with research that analyzes the careers of European parliamentarians, adopting a comparative and cross-sectional approach and taking into account previous and subsequent political experiences in a multilevel perspective. Indeed, we propose a comparison between two similar cases, namely two southern European countries that have a quasi-federal system or are affected by an important regionalization process – Spain and Italy – and we examine a rather long time period ranging from the IV to the IX EP legislature. Our dataset consists of 508 observations, 195 relating to Spanish members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and 313 to Italian ones. By relying on the recent systematization, we propose to classify MEPs’ career models – which are our dependent variable – into four types: the EU shorter-termers, the ‘stepping stone’ MEPs, the EU long-termers, and the ‘multilevel surfers’. A multinominal regression analysis was conducted to understand which political factors (party affiliation of MEPs, length of previous career, critical European Parliament [EP] elections) may have a specific impact on each career type. We found that, after the 2014 EP critical election, the probability of MEPs engaging in the EP decreases, as they are more likely to develop a short-term career model than a long-term one. In addition, previous national experience and a regional executive career are the best predictors of a multilevel career.

Political science concerns topics that can be highly relevant for politicians. Political science research and education offer insights that can help incumbents win elections or govern better. At the same time, the discipline provides knowledge that can be used to challenge politicians in office, for example, on how to organise mass protests or effective opposition parties. Therefore, politicians in power may have mixed feelings about the existence of political science departments. Some will encourage their establishment, while others – perhaps especially autocrats – may try to contain their presence or control their location. We study the existence and placement of political science units at universities across the world and assess the extent to which these features vary with regime type. Using large-N data on university subdivisions, we examine cross-national variation in existence and within-country variation in the location of political science departments. We find surprisingly few substantial differences along the democracy–autocracy continuum: Political science units, on average, are no more frequent in democracies. Across regime types, political science units are about equally likely to be located at public (versus private) institutions, and similarly likely to be placed at universities closer to the capital.

The expansion of democratic innovations has always been analysed from the point of view of the quality of the instruments, as well as their internal functioning. In this paper, using as an example the expansion of democratic innovations in Spain, we propose to understand this process from the sociological concept of ‘field’. Thus, we will be able to analyse the changes that have taken place in this new field of institutional participation. The results give us relevant information about the existing conflicts, as well as necessary keys to understand the crisis of some instruments or the arrival of new ones.

This article compares the historical trajectories of democratic innovations across space and time in the UK by analysing the development and impact of collaborative governance, participatory budgeting, referendums, and mini-publics. This is an interesting country for longer-term analysis. First, the UK has been considered an inhospitable environment for democratic innovation. Second, it has experienced asymmetrical decentralisation of legislative and executive powers from national to subnational institutions. Third, these changes have taken place during a period of democratic backsliding. We analyse how these dynamics are interrelated by charting the trajectory of four types of democratic innovations in four different countries of the UK (space) from the 1970s to the present (time). We find that, after years of limited democratic innovation there has been rapid, although geographically asymmetrical, development in recent decades. We argue that the importance of these differences should not be overstated in relation to democratic deepening. We conclude that, to advance democratic innovations in the UK, a constitutional convention is required.