Stein Rokkan's contribution to the contemporary understanding of European politics and political development remains unparalleled. In many ways, and particularly for my generation, which first learned political science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it has been Rokkan's interpretation which has done most to frame our long-term understanding of how our political environment has been shaped. Moreover, despite the burgeoning of the literature on comparative European politics in recent years, his is an interpretation which has also remained largely unchallenged. Few, if any, would seek to redraw the contours which he established in his geopolitical map of Europe, for example, and few, if any, would seek to question the importance of the cleavage structures which he identified as crucial to the development and consolidation of mass politics and party systems.

This paper examines the politicization of gender inequality through a cross-national analysis of attitudes towards inequality between men and women. The data were obtained from national surveys in the United States, Britain, West Germany, Australia and Italy. In all of these countries, attitudes towards gender inequality were found to be associated with the ‘left-right’ cleavage over economic inequality and redistribution, but they were unrelated to ‘new politics’ issues. It was also found that attitudes towards gender inequality were more closely integrated into the left-right cleavage in those countries where there was greater awareness of gender issues, and that they had very little net impact on partisanship. Thus high levels of awareness of gender inequality are not associated with the emergence of a new cross-cutting political cleavage. It is concluded that inequality of opportunity between men and women does not constitute part of a new politics agenda, nor does it cross-cut other sources of political interests. It is more plausibly seen as a new element of the well-established left-right cleavage. Consequently, it leaves the structure of political divisions relatively intact.

Despite the similarities between the Nordic countries with regard to social and political structures, major differences in grass roots participation are found. Participation is highest in Sweden and lowest in Finland, with Denmark, Norway and Iceland falling in between. There are also striking differences between the countries regarding the relationships between participation and factors as age, gender, education, social class and party choice. Two theories may help us to understand these differences. The first, mobilization theory, claims that grass root participation is used to mobilize new social groups. This theory is supported by evidence from Denmark, Norway and Iceland. During the 1970s and the 1980s all three countries experienced political mobilization of the well-educated, the new middle class and the women. The second theory, supplement theory, claims that grass root participation is nothing but an extension of the conventional modes of participation. This theory is supported in Sweden. The last section of the paper argues that differences between countries may be explained by differences in the strength of traditional political organizations.

The failure of the Green parties at recent elections in Sweden and Germany makes it necessary to consider the future of ‘new politics’ in each country. With reference to modern organisation theory, the goal of this article is to explain the different character of the Green parties in both countries in terms of external political resources. Above all the features of new social movements on the one hand and the different party systems on the other are of particular importance. It is argued that both factors have an impact on the cleavage structure and social change in Sweden and Germany, as well as being important for the organizational survival of Green parties in both countries. The conclusion is that ‘new politics’ and the Greens have a more promising future in Germany than in Sweden.

This paper presents evidence of initial steps taken since 1989 towards the enhancement of social democratic transnational party co-operation, manifesting itself on both a programmatic and an organizational level. To explain this development, a thesis based on the neo-functionalist logic of political spillover together with a theory of party change is presented. An emerging European-level presence is explained by increased EC policymaking since the adoption of the Single European Act, interacting with the internal preconditions for organizational innovation present in many social democratic parties. Evidence of such trends is then submitted, focusing on the French Socialist, German Social-Democratic and British Labour Parties; the European Parliament Socialist Group; and the Socialist transnational party federation.

The concept of authoritarianism has generally been considered a personality construct, although the approach of Adorno et al. was inspired by previous approaches with an ideological ‘fascist’ angle. These two approaches were, to an appreciable extent, mixed in later conceptualizations. Here, I propose their disentanglement. The classical Adorno et al. F-scale is considered a personality variable. Apart from that, an ideological libertarianism-authoritarianism dimension is constructed, partly validated by its relationship to a shortened unidimensional version of the F-scale. The personality variable of authoritarianism is shown to have no substantial empirical relationship to voting intentions in the Netherlands. However, the ideological measure of authoritarianism is relatively strongly and stably associated with intended voting behaviour. The study also clarifies the ongoing debate over the relationship between authoritarianism and left-right ideology. The weak relationships between measures of authoritarianism and left-right ideology signify the existence of ‘left-wing authoritarianism’ in the Dutch population.