A growing body of work has examined the relationship between media and politics from an agenda‐setting perspective: Is attention for issues initiated by political elites with the media following suit, or is the reverse relation stronger? A long series of single‐country studies has suggested a number of general agenda‐setting patterns but these have never been confirmed in a comparative approach. In a comparative, longitudinal design including comparable media and politics evidence for seven European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), this study highlights a number of generic patterns. Additionally, it shows how the political system matters. Overall, the media are a stronger inspirer of political action in countries with single‐party governments compared to those with multiple‐party governments for opposition parties. But, government parties are more reactive to media under multiparty governments.

This article seeks to establish whether the structural-operational definition of the sector, used by the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (JHCNSP), is universal in its applicability. Historical case studies of primary health care and social housing provision in nineteenth-century England demonstrate that the definition cannot accommodate the institutional diversity of earlier periods and does not produce meaningful sectoral distinctions. The structural-operational definition rules out of the sector a significant proportion of nonstatutory, nonprofit maximizing providers. In particular, it excludes the mutual aid organizations, which are widely recognized as important for the development of civil society and which have historically been considered to be key components of the sector. These case studies suggest that the structural-operational definition limits the capacity of the JHCNSP to fulfil its aim of establishing “the factors that promote or retard the sector’s development” owing to potential measurement errors and the pattern of development that the project implicitly assumes for the nonprofit sector.

Scholars have studied the differences in pro-social behaviors among countries for over 50 years. Religious participation in the USA is one of the factors that lead to comparatively higher rates of giving and volunteering. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for the highest rates of pro-social behaviors in the USA, but do members of this US-based religion exhibit the same levels of giving and volunteering in other countries? Using a prior study of 2664 Latter-day Saints in the USA, we administered the same survey to 1719 Latter-day Saints in Colombia, measuring volunteer activity, charitable giving, as well as religious beliefs, and attitudes toward giving and volunteering. We found a variety of relatively small differences between the groups. However, the comparative similarities in pro-social behaviors indicate strong organizational influences that have effectively shaped high rates of these behaviors across countries.

Comparative research on nonprofit organizations (NPOs) has been a prominent approach for advancing our understanding of these organizations. This article identifies the primary drivers that shape the NPO comparative research agenda and explores new research trends. Based on a systematic literature review, nine definitional aspects and ten impulses are identified as drivers of NPO research. This article conducts a correspondence analysis to study the relationships between the definitional aspects and impulses that are discussed in 111 articles that were published in philanthropic and third-sector journals in the period January 2001–January 2015. Based on our results, we suggest three new clusters for future comparative research: investment and growth, participation and social impact, and social cohesion and civil society.

Lester Salamon and Helmut Anheier’s “Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally” offers a thorough cross-national quantitative analysis of the correlates of nonprofit-sector size, composition, and sources of funding. The first study of its kind, it is remarkable in both its theoretical ambition and empirical scope. Still, this research is plagued by problems that affect almost all research of this type: small numbers, poor measures, vague theories, a preponderance of cross-sectional data, and so on. Suggestions for improving the research include: (1) disaggregating the definition of the nonprofit sector to address criticisms from both the right and the left; (2) adopting a multidimensional approach to assessment of the nonprofit sector, to deal with its great heterogeneity; (3) devoting more attention to possible nonlinear relationships; and (4) casting a wider theoretical net in the effort to build a convincing “social origins” perspective. In the end, Salamon and Anheier may be forced to devote more effort to qualitative analysis of specific sectors to demonstrate the explanatory power of the social origins perspective.

This article introduces the Comparative Conspiracy Research Survey (CCRS) dataset, an individual-level cross-sectional dataset on conspiracy beliefs in eight countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Lebanon, Morocco, South Africa, and the USA. The dataset contains general conspiracy belief scales, as well as country specific data on dominant conspiracy theories. In addition, the questionnaire contains validated scales of social trust, populist attitudes, authoritarianism, self-esteem as well as items measuring political interest, ideology, and socioeconomic class. In this research note, we present the methodology of the survey and provide an example of how researchers can use the dataset. This example tackles the difference in the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and activism intentions across countries. We highlight that activism is related to conspiracy beliefs in consolidated democracies, but not necessarily in developing democracies or more authoritarian regimes. Lastly, we conclude by laying out several possibilities for research using the CCRS dataset.

Using data from the seventh wave of the World Values Survey, this study examines how social media use shapes the negotiation of transnational identity in South Korea and Taiwan—two countries characterized by distinct forms of nationalism—and whether social capital moderates this relationship. A two-dimensional model encompassing local–global attachment and protectionism–openness was employed to identify latent classes of transnational identity. The findings reveal that nationalism significantly influences identity negotiation in both countries, with Taiwanese citizens exhibiting stronger global ties compared to Koreans. In addition, social media use reinforces local and protectionist identities in these countries, limiting transnational solidarity and amplifying exclusivity through algorithmically mediated digital networks. Notably, social capital moderates this dynamic by fostering global openness, particularly when trust in out-groups is high. This study highlights the intricate interplay between social media use, social capital, and transnational identity negotiation, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the cultural response to globalization in East Asia.

In this paper, we conduct an in-depth review of and commentary on two frameworks for international comparative work focused on education systems and skill formation – specifically, welfare regime and production regime approaches. We focus on how tertiary education is understood to function relationally within a national policy repertoire and explore the interplay between education and economic systems. Whereas the welfare regime literature illuminates why some regimes are conducive to human capital production and create more equitable educational and labour market opportunities, the production regime literature focuses on the ways that actors such as government, educational institutions, and unions optimise skill formation. These two theoretical perspectives offer both rival and complementary explanations of varying patterns in public investment, differentiation in education systems, and participation rates in tertiary education across countries. Our analytical account provides useful insights for understanding different national education policies and framing future research, including informing these perspectives with the more recent theoretical contributions of the social investment approach. In relation to changing conceptions of the knowledge economy, education, skill development, and the nature of employment, these two theoretical perspectives continue to provide useful conceptual lenses to examine the education/skill /employment nexus.

Investigating the relationship between Islamic religiosity and electoral participation amongst Muslim citizens in Western Europe, this study combines insights from the sociology of religion and Islamic studies with political behavior literature thus creating an improved theoretical framework and a richer empirical understanding surrounding the electoral participation of religious minorities. First, we theorize about three underlying dimensions of Islamic religiosity: frequency of mosque attendance, religious identification, and frequency of prayer. Subsequently, we consider how the religiosity–voting relationship is bolstered or hindered by hostile national environments such as more exclusionary policies and practices (e.g., veil banning or exclusionary citizenship laws).

Empirically, we use a unique dataset that harmonizes five European surveys, resulting in a sample size of just under 8,000 European Muslims. Using multi-level techniques, we find, contrary to research on majority religiosity, that communal religiosity is unrelated to electoral participation. However, individual religiosity bolsters voting in particular among the second generation. Opposite to our expectation, we find that hostile environments do not seem to lead to different impacts of Islamic religiosity within Western Europe. Our results support the taking of a more fine-grained approach when measuring religiosity and also highlight how the impact varies across genders and generations.

The authors provide a scholarly conspectus of comparative studies involving Russian, EU8 and EU15 Welfare Polities. They elaborate the notion of the ‘welfare polity’ and its potential for enhancing comparative studies of welfare institutions, policies and practices. This is accompanied by an overview of trends in comparative studies involving Russian, EU8 and EU15 countries, along with a consideration of how comparative research involving these states can be strengthened. Gaps in the literature and evidence base, including systematic cross-national and temporal data on the design and implementation of social policies and social protection, are highlighted. A shared concern was found with the growth of division and exclusion exacerbated by global economic factors and by state-level policy shifts, a trend especially notable in Russian studies. Fruitful pointers for future research and international collaboration are indicated and the need for further comparative efforts emphasised at a challenging time for geopolitical relations.

Rubin and Pearl offered approaches to causal effect estimation and Lewis and Pearl offered theories of counterfactual conditionals. Arguments offered by Pearl and his collaborators support a weak form of equivalence such that notation from the rival theory can be re-purposed to express Pearl’s theory in a way that is equivalent to Pearl’s theory expressed in its native notation. Nonetheless, the many fundamental differences between the theories rule out any stronger form of equivalence. A renewed emphasis on comparative research can help to guide applications, further develop each theory, and better understand their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of defamilization as a concept for analysing state-market-family relationships in comparative perspective. A paradox has emerged around defamilization in the last decade; its use in empirical large-N research has grown markedly despite mounting criticism in theoretical discussions. Applying criteria of conceptual goodness, we find that the popularity of the concept is based on its high degree of parsimony, theoretical utility and field utility, but that there are problems with the resonance, coherence and differentiation of the concept. We argue that defamilization is most coherent and has greatest utility if the concept’s roots in welfare state theory are fully acknowledged. In our view, this means that defamilization is best understood a) alongside the separate concept of familization, b) as a multidimensional concept in terms of economic and social dependencies in family relationships, and c) as a means of addressing both gender and intergenerational dependencies. Although suitable for operationalization in empirical research, the concept hence imposes high demands regarding the required data and possible analyses.