The main aim of this article is to develop a perspective on the universe of measures for group representation that goes beyond a narrow focus on gender and ethnicity. The article employs an inductive approach by analysing and comparing the formal and informal party quotas and rules applied by political parties in candidate selection processes for the German federal elections using a mixed-method design of qualitative interviews, content analysis and participant observation. The analysis reveals that parties in Germany adopt a broad range of party rules to guarantee group representation, which differ systematically by party type and ideology. Overall, there is a predominance of informal, yet highly institutionalised, quotas and rules. Also, there are clear conflicts as to the relative ranking of specific quotas and rules, leading to interaction effects between them. Based on this neo-institutionalist perspective, the article then attempts to develop a typology of quotas.
While populism and technocracy have attracted enormous scientific attention in recent years, surprisingly how the two concepts relate to each other has rarely been investigated. Looking at the case of the EU, we investigate how populist parties position themselves in relation to technocracy in general and the technocratic nature of EU institutions in particular. In a first theoretical step, we identify the core elements, modes of governance, and policy output of technocratic governance and use them to derive potential responses of populist parties. In the empirical part, we investigate these aspects of technocracy by applying quantitative and qualitative approaches using the 2019 European election manifestos of 12 populist parties. We show that left- and right-wing populist parties articulate anti-technocratic positions, particularly regarding the core elements of technocratic governance. The concrete technocratic critique differs regarding the respective host ideology. However, within the group of hybrid populist parties, ANO 2011 and GERB appear not to have a critical stance towards technocracy and thus can be classified as technocratic populist parties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.