This paper explores the dynamics giving momentum to the institutional construction of a policy field. This objective is pursued through the study of a case: the articulation and institutionalization of a policy field concerned with organic farming within the auspices of the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) from 1980 to 2003. Applying a discursive institutional analytical framework focusing on the dynamics of institutional change it is concluded that-when it comes to the study of ideas-perhaps: (1) the CAP is not as sectorized a policy field as it is commonly considered to be, and (2) the European Parliament also has a role to play as an agent of change within the CAP.

This article is about variation in the expansion of organic farming sectors in different countries. It is suggested that variations in the absolute expansion of organic farming may be understood through a theoretical framework emphasizing the importance of the quality of the interrelationships among national institutions within organic farming as well as between organic and conventional agriculture. The theoretical proposition is illustrated by comparing the development in the institutional environment of organic farming in Denmark and Belgium from 1985 to 1999. In the Belgian case, the organic farming sector has expanded slowly due to an institutional environment of organic farming that has developed along regional lines and detached from the institutions of conventional farming. This development is seen as a result of an interrelationship characterized by pure competition where very little dialogue appears between organic and conventional farming. In the Danish case the organic farming sector has expanded throughout the period as a result of a series of creative conflicts, both within the organic farming sector and between the organic and conventional farming sectors.

This introductory article to the special issue zooms in on the literature on political emotions with a specific focus on methodological questions of "how to study" political emotions. To the extent that methodological matters are addressed in the extant literature, the associated challenges are often portrayed as a clash between social science and natural science disciplines, a clash frequently illustrated by the meeting between political science and neuroscience. Rather than being a clash between academic disciplines, this article argues that many of the methodological challenges facing emotional research have their origin in scholars' diverse views on the relationship between themselves as researchers and political emotions as a research object. In the light of this acknowledgment, the article encircles and discusses the methodological challenges associated with three key conceptual distinctions between: (1) individual and collective emotions, (2) emotions and reason, and between (3) involuntary political emotions and the strategic usage of political emotions. Using the contributions to this special issue as illustrations, the article argues in favor of moving beyond mutually exclusive dichotomies regarding these conceptual distinctions and offers pathways for dealing with current methodological challenges to emotional research. It points to methodological pluralism, transparency, and context-sensitive research strategies.KEY WORDS: methodology, individual and collective emotions, emotions and reason, involuntary and strategic emotions bs_bs_banner

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

No abstract

This paper aims to advance European integration research by exploring the emotional appeal of political myths in day-today European Union politics with a special focus on the reception and reproduction of myths among pan-European Union non-governmental organisations. I investigate myths associated with 'EUROPE 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth', adopted in early 2010. What makes Europe 2020 especially interesting here is that it draws upon and feeds into a number of myths about European integration including 'green Europe' and 'social Europe'. The paper argues that: (1) pan-European Union non-governmental organisations are receptive to political myths, including in the short term; (2) pan-European Union non-governmental organisations contribute to the reproduction of myths, especially already-institutionalised myths and myths that resonate with their sectoral activities; and (3) pan-European Union non-governmental organisations strategically use political myths to justify policy positions and continually mobilise desires around utopian ideals to secure organisational survival.

No abstract

Government responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic in the Nordic states—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—exhibit similarities and differences. This article investigates the extent to which crisis policymaking diverges from normal policymaking within the Nordic countries and whether variations between the countries are associated with the role of expertise and the level of politicization. Government responses are analyzed in terms of governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Findings demonstrate some deviation from normal policymaking within and considerable variation between the Nordic countries, as Denmark, Finland, and to some extent Norway exhibit similar patterns with hierarchical command and control governance arrangements, while Iceland, in some instances, resembles the case of Sweden, which has made use of network‐based governance. The article shows that the higher the influence of experts, the more likely it is that the governance arrangement will be network‐based.