Archives: Events

Time: 27 September 2023 at 18:00-19:00 (Time zone EEST – Finland)
Place: Zoom

This webinar dealt with the recently published edited volume “Democracy and the Future: Future-Regarding Governance in Democratic Systems” (Edinburgh University Press, 2023), edited by Michael MacKenzie, Maija Setälä, and Simo Kyllönen.

The book brings together political philosophers, democratic theorists, empirical political scientists, and policy experts to examine how democratic systems might be designed so that the long-term consequences of our decisions are better considered in policymaking. It examines these topics from many different perspectives – it is interdisciplinary and globally oriented – but it also explores Finland as an example of how future-regarding governance might be done. The book explores the challenges and possibilities of long-term governance in democratic systems in an era of multiple crises.

The event included a brief introduction to the book by Prof. Michael K. MacKenzie (Vancouver Island University), followed by comments by Prof. Simon Caney (University of Warwick), and a discussion.

The book is based on the research project “Participation in Long-Term Decision-Making” (PALO), funded by the Strategic Research Council (2017-2022).

 

Book reviews

This fascinating volume brings together leading political theorists and empirical researchers to illuminate the relationship between democracy and long-term decision-making. Starting from an analysis of the myriad tensions between democratic politics and future-regarding governance, the book goes on to unearth a variety of ways in which well-designed institutions, well-structured deliberations, and farsighted leaders can help democracies manage long-term societal challenges. The volume will be invaluable to both scholars and policymakers seeking to more strongly orient democratic politics toward the future.

– Alan Jacobs, University of British Columbia

 

 

 

 

Time: 15-16 December 2021
Venue: University of Turku, Aurum building, auditorium Argentum & Zoom

This event was the final conference of the PALO project. The conference programme included two keynote speeches, scientific presentations organised around the main findings of the project, and a panel discussion on the design of future-regarding institutions.

Programme

Tuesday, 14 December

20.00 Dinner (Restaurant Mami, address: Linnankatu 3).

 

Wednesday, 15 December

09.30-09.45 Coffee and welcome

09.45-10.00 Opening remarks

10.00-11.00 Keynote I
Jonathan Boston (Victoria University of Wellington): Protecting long-term interests in a short-term world: issues and options
Discussant: Vesa Koskimaa (University of Tampere)

11.00-12.00 Individuals
Lauri Rapeli (Åbo Akademi): Future-oriented political thinking at the individual-level
Discussant: Sanna Ahvenharju (University of Turku)

Esa Palosaari (Tampere University): Effects of fear on donations to climate change mitigation
Discussant: Staffan Himmelroos (University of Helsinki)

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.00 Interaction
Jonathan Kuyper (University of Oslo): Sustainability in asymmetric common-pool resource usage: Communication and the deliberative mindset
Discussant: Héctor Bahamonde (University of Turku)

Mikko Leino (University of Turku): Can democratic deliberation help thinking and caring about future generations?
Discussant: Daan Vermassen (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Erkki Mäntymaa (Natural Resources Institute Finland, Luke): Wind power as a landscape disturbance: Would landscape value trade help?
Discussant: Anna-Kaisa Kosenius (University of Helsinki)

15.00-15.30 Coffee

15.30-16.30 Keynote II
Anja Karnein (Binghamton University): What’s wrong with the presentist bias?
Discussant: Simo Kyllönen (University of Helsinki)

19.00 Conference dinner (Restaurant E.Ekblom, Neuvolansali).

 

Thursday, 16 December

11.00 Coffee

11.30 Institutions
Maija Setälä (University of Turku): Possible roles of mini-publics in democratic systems
Discussant: Ian O’Flynn (Newcastle University)

Vesa Koskimaa (University of Tampere): Future-regarding decision-making in Finland: Institutions, actors and practices
Discussant: Didier Caluwaerts (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Juha Hiedanpää (Natural Resources Institute Finland, Luke): Ecosocial compensation of lost nature-based urban social values
Discussant: Teemu Haukioja (University of Turku)

13.00-14.30 Lunch

14.30-15.45 Panel discussion on the design of future-regarding institutions
In conversation with Graham Smith (University of Westminster), Didier Caluwaerts (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Lauri Rapeli (Åbo Akademi) & Maija Setälä (University of Turku). Chair: Kaisa Herne.

15.45-16.15 PALO results in brief and look ahead

 

 

Keynotes

Keynote I | Jonathan Boston: Protecting long-term interests in a short-term world: issues and options

Presentation Jonathan Boston (pdf)

Jonathan Boston is Professor of Public Policy in the Wellington School of Business and Government at Victoria University of Wellington.

Abstract: There is broad agreement that democratic political systems, when faced with intertemporal conflicts, tend to favour short-term interests over long-term interests. Such phenomena, variously described as political short-termism, democratic myopia and a presentist bias in policy-making, threaten the interests of future generations. But while there is broad agreement on the nature and seriousness of the problem, along with its many causes, there is much less agreement on how political short-termism can best be countered, or at least modestly mitigated. Large numbers of proposed ’solutions’ have been advanced over recent decades. Such proposals tend to reflect the disciplinary and/or ideological orientation of their advocates. For instance, constitutional experts focus on constitutional solutions; economists focus on incentive structures, discount rates, and economic instruments; political theorists focus on democratic processes and institutions; and accountants focus on such things as national wealth accounting, natural capital accounting, and national reporting frameworks. But how might the desirability, effectiveness, and relevance of these multiple contending approaches be assessed? Is there a universally best strategy for countering political short-termism (i.e. regardless of context, policy domain or jurisdiction) or should reformers seek to tailor their responses depending on the circumstances and the particular windows of opportunity for reform? This presentation reflects on these and related questions in the light of my research and policy-related roles over recent decades.

 

Keynote II |  Anja Karnein: What’s wrong with the presentist bias?

Presentation Anja Karnein (pdf)

Anja Karnein is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Binghamton University.

Abstract: In response to what is increasingly criticized as the presentist bias of democracies, the idea of giving future generations a voice via political representation is gaining significant traction. But it remains to be determined on which issues exactly future generations should be given a say: on all issues that potentially affect them, on only those that potentially affect them negatively or on an even narrower set of issues? In this paper I argue for the third option. I show that due to the difficulties involved in representing non-existing future generations, who can neither authorize nor hold their representatives to account, and to the risk that thereby arises for the democratic practices among contemporaries, there is reason to represent them not on all matters that affect them or even that affect them negatively. Rather, the focus ought to be on including them only on issues that may lead to their domination. I identify such issues as those that may end up being purpose-determining for future generations: that may subject them to previous generations’ will by forcing them to exert a substantial amount of their energies on dealing with a problem caused by their predecessors.

 

Recordings were available until 31 December 2021. 

 

Registration

Online participants: No registation is required.

In-person participants: The registration for this event is closed.

NB! Information on Coronavirus

– Wear a face mask (unless you are eating).
– Keep a safe distance (2 meters) from other participants.
– Stay home if you’re not feeling well.
– Wash your hands often, use hand sanitiser and cough or sneeze into your sleeve.

Read more about the University’s  instructions on Coronavirus situation.

Conference dinner participants: Please note that the Covid-19 passport will be required.

 

Inquiries

 

Time: 19 November – 1 December 2021
Place: Zoom https://utu.zoom.us/j/62521394124 (Meeting ID: 625 2139 4124)

In this seminar series, leading scholars explore the themes of long-term governance and democracy. Hosted by PALO (Participation in Long-Term Decision-Making) research consortium, the series consists of three academic talks by guest speakers.

The talks are based on recently published books. They deal with the role of expertise and democratic deliberation in future-regarding decision-making, as well as prospects of democratic renewal through citizen participation and deliberation.

The online series is open to all. No registration is required.

Schedule

Times are local Finnish time, time zone Eastern European Time EET (UTC+2).

Friday 19 November 2021 at 09:00-10:00 (EET)
Vincent Ialenti (University of Southern California): Deep Time Decision: An Anthropology of Finland’s Nuclear Waste Repository Licensing Ritual
Host: Kaisa Herne (University of Tampere)

Wednesday 24 November at 15:00-16:00 (EET)
Michael MacKenzie (University of Pittsburgh): Future Publics: Democracy, Deliberation, and Future-Regarding Collective Action
Host: Lauri Rapeli (Åbo Akademi University)

Presentation (MacKenzie): Future Publics: Democracy, Deliberation, and Future-Regarding Collective Action (pdf)

Wednesday 1 December 15:00-16:00 (EET)
Hélène Landemore (Yale University): Open Democracy: Democratic Representation beyond Elections
Host: Maija Setälä (University of Turku)

* * * Recordings were available until 21 December 2021 * * *

 

Abstracts

Vincent Ialenti (University of Southern California): Deep Time Decision: An Anthropology of Finland’s Nuclear Waste Repository Licensing Ritual

Drawing on thirty-two months of ethnographic fieldwork in Finland and the book Deep Time Reckoning, this talk examines how “safety case” experts assembled technical evidence to persuade Finland’s nuclear regulatory authority STUK to permit the construction of what will likely become the world’s first deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. These experts combined techniques of analogical reasoning, quantitative modeling, qualitative scenario-making, mechanical stress testing, and geological/ecological fieldwork to make tentative projections of far future worlds. From their transdisciplinary collaborations emerged visions of future glaciations, climate changes, earthquakes, floods, human and animal population changes, and more. These forecasting efforts can be recast as an anthropological problem-space for re-thinking the value of future-gazing technical expertise during a moment of global political, ecological, and epistemic uncertainty. First, however, one must resist the impulse to dismiss the safety case’s hyper-constructions outright as mere fantasy documents devised to manipulate stakeholders into consent. While the safety case was, indeed, made to persuade, its authors saw their farsighted inquiries as flawed-but-pragmatic projections borne out of reflexive self-critique, multi-perspectival visioning, and iterative revision cycles. Scouring their subtle epistemic sensibilities for lessons about the promises and perils of long-term decision-making, this talk concludes by retooling safety case experts’ reflections on the limits of knowledge into poly-temporal strategies for engaging with socio-ecological futures near and deep.

Michael MacKenzie (University of Pittsburgh): Future Publics: Democracy, Deliberation, and Future-Regarding Collective Action

Scholars have often claimed that democracies, whatever their virtues, are functionally short-sighted. The evidence is clear: we have been unable to manage many long-term issues including climate change, nuclear waste disposal, natural disaster preparedness, infrastructure maintenance, and budget deficits. If voters and influential actors, such as interest groups and corporations, have dominant short-term interests, it may be difficult for elected politicians to act in the long-term interests of society, even if they think that it would be the right thing to do. To solve long-term problems, do we need political systems that are less democratic, or even authoritarian?

This idea, which Michael K. MacKenzie calls the “democratic myopia thesis,” is a sort of conventional wisdom; it is an idea that scholars and pundits take for granted as a truth about democracy without subjecting it to adequate critical scrutiny. In Future Public, MacKenzie challenges this conventional wisdom and articulates a deliberative, democratic theory of future-regarding collective action. Specifically, MacKenzie argues that each part of the democratic myopia problem can be addressed through democratic—rather than authoritarian—means. At a more fundamental level, once we recognize that democratic practices are world-making activities that empower us to make our shared worlds together, they should also be understood as future-making activities. Despite the short-term dynamics associated with electoral democracy, MacKenzie asserts that we need more inclusive and deliberative democracies if we are going to make shared futures that will work for us all.

 

Hélène Landemore (Yale University): Open Democracy: Democratic Representation beyond Elections

Is it possible to have democratic representation without elections? In her new book Open Democracy, Landemore argues that new forms of participation in the political process that are often  nested under the label of “direct democracy” (also “participatory,” “deliberative” or even “citizen” democracy) should be conceptualized instead as new forms of democratic representation. To make this conceptualization possible Landemore disentangles the related but distinct notions of representation, “democraticity,” and legitimacy. She then evaluates the democratic character of a representative assembly or position—its “democraticity”—in terms of the degree to which access to that assembly or position is inclusive and equal. On that basis she then assesses the various merits, including in terms of accountability of two forms of democratic representation, namely lottocratic representation, performed by randomly selected bodies of citizens such as Citizen Juries, Deliberative Polls, or Citizens’ Assemblies and self-selected representation, performed by self-appointed participants in social movements and open assemblies.

 

Inquiries:

Should you have questions concerning the event, please contact Project Coordinator Mari Taskinen (mjtask@utu.fi).

 

Time: Friday, 29 October 2021 at 13:00–14:15 EEST (UTC+3).
Place: Zoom

During the past decade, and the past few years in particular, there has been a growing interest in deliberative mini-publics, largely because of their capacity for dealing with complex and polarising issues like climate change. Mini-publics, which can manifest as processes such as Citizens’ Panels and Assemblies, convene randomly selected groups of people representing a wide cross-section of society to learn, deliberate, and develop collective recommendations for solving multifaceted public issues.

Although the so-called deliberative wave has been growing around the world, deliberative processes have been used cautiously in Finnish policy-making. Two government-sponsored Citizens’ Panels were organized in 2021, one on freedom of speech in the context of the OECD Civic Space Scan of Finland, and one on national climate policies. However, there are many questions regarding the potential roles of deliberative processes in Finnish politics, such as how they contribute to decision-making and their impact on public discourse.

During this event, Claudia Chwalisz, who leads the OECD’s work on innovative citizen participation, will present the findings of the OECD research on the deliberative wave, as well as a new OECD paper on how public deliberation is being institutionalised to become a permanent part of the democratic system. She will be joined by Maija Setälä (University of Turku), who will discuss the role of mini-publics from the Finnish perspective and cover some examples of recent deliberative processes in Finland. These presentations will be followed by comments from Katju Holkeri (Ministry of Finance) and Hannu-Pekka Ikäheimo (Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra). The event will be chaired by Kaisa Herne (University of Tampere).

 

Materials

 

The recording of the event was available until 13 November 2021.

Presentation (Chwalisz): OECD research on the deliberative wave and the institutionalisation of deliberative democracy (pdf)

Presentation (Setälä): Is there need for deliberative mini-publics in Finland? (pdf)

Programme

Times are local Finnish time, time zone Eastern European Summer Time EEST (UTC+3).

13.00 Opening words
Kaisa Herne, Tampere University

13.05 OECD research on the deliberative wave and the institutionalisation of deliberative democracy
Claudia Chwalisz, OECD

13.35–13.50 Is there need for deliberative mini-publics in Finland?
Maija Setälä, University of Turku

13.50–14.00 Comments
Katju Holkeri, Ministry of Finance
Hannu-Pekka Ikäheimo, Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA

14.00–14.15 Responses & open discussion

 

Registration

The event is free of charge and open to everyone interested in the topic, but requires prior registration.

Please register here: https://www.utu.fi/en/news/events/where-is-finland-on-the-deliberative-wave.

A Zoom link will be provided upon registering for the event.

 

Organiser

The event is part of the PALO (Participation in Long-Term Decision-Making) research project that analyses problems of practices of long-term decision-making. With the objective to strengthen democracy, PALO develops better practices for deliberative citizen participation. The consortium partners are the University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, the Natural Resources Institute Finland and the University of Tampere. The project is funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) at the Academy of Finland.

 

Inquiries

Should you have questions concerning the event, please contact Mari Taskinen (mjtask@utu.fi).

 

 

 

 

 

Time: December 2, 2019 at 16.00-18.00

Venue: Think Corner, Think Lounge (Yliopistonkatu 4, Helsinki)

Getting serious with games! What role can games and gamification play in addressing local and global sustainability challenges? How have they been used? What are the opportunities and challenges from the point of view of young people especially?

This keynote lecture will be given by Todd Schenk, assistant professor in the Urban Affairs and Planning group of the School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech. Organised by Academy of Finland Strategic Research Council projects CORE, ALL-YOUTH, BIBU and PALO.

 

Time: June 17, 2019 at 13.00-17.00

Venue: The Main Library, Studio (Linnankatu 2, Turku)

Should democracies be more future sensitive?
Can political institutions be designed to care about the future?
Has democratic deliberation capacity for future-making?

SEMINAR MATERIALS

Mark E. Warren (University of British Columbia):
Rethinking the future sensitivity of democracy through the all affected principle (pdf)

Graham Smith (University of Westminster):
The legitimacy of independent offices for future generations (pdf)

Nicole Curato (University of Canberra):
Future-making as practice of public deliberation (pdf)

PROGRAMME

13.00 Welcome

13.00 Prof Mark E. Warren (University of British Columbia):
Rethinking the future sensitivity of democracy through the all affected principle

Discussant: Dr Simo Kyllönen (University of Helsinki)

14.00 Coffee

14.30 Prof Graham Smith (University of Westminster):
The legitimacy of independent offices for future generations

Discussant: Prof Maija Setälä (University of Turku)

15.30 Break

15.45 Dr Nicole Curato (University of Canberra):
Future-making as practice of public deliberation

Discussant: Prof Henri Vogt (University of Turku)

16.45 Closing remarks

Seminar programme (pdf)

Seminar poster (pdf) 

Registration:
The seminar is free of charge and open to everyone interested in the topic.

The registration is closed. If you would like to post-register, kindly contact Mari Taskinen, mjtask(at)utu.fi.

Further information:
Please direct questions about the event to Maija Setälä, maiset(at).utu.fi.

Organiser:  Participation in Long-Term Decision-Making (PALO) is a multidisciplinary research project that focuses on the problems related to long-term decision-making practices. The PALO consortium consists of four organisations: the University of Turku, the Natural Resource Institute Finland, Åbo Akademi University and the University of Tampere. The four-year (2017-2021) project is funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) at the Academy of Finland.

ABSTRACTS AND BIOS

Mark E. Warren: Rethinking the future sensitivity of democracy through the all affected principle

The principle that all those affected by a collective decision should be included in the decision is long-standing, dating at least back to the Justinian Code (V,59,5,2) in Roman private law: “what touches all must be approved by all.” Over the last several decades, the idea has migrated into democratic theory, often without much remark, almost as if this principle of inclusion stands as common sense, with little need of specification and justification. This principle, however, is increasingly in conflict with what has emerged as the standard view of inclusion dating back to the democratization of modern nation-states. Entitlements to a say over collective matters should follow membership of living adults. Yet justifications for democratic inclusion based on membership are increasingly undermined by a combination of changing ethics and developing social and political entanglements, both territorial and temporal. Collective decisions (or collective neglect) by living members of a polity impacts capacities for self-government—the democratic agency—of those beyond both political and temporal borders. In this talk, I argue that explicitly rebuilding democratic theory around the All Affected Principle will help to sensitize polities to those kinds of affects that undermine or support the capacities of those beyond borders—jurisdictional and temporal—to decide their futures.

Mark E. Warren holds the Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair for the Study of Democracy at the University of British Columbia. He is especially interested in democratic innovations, civil society and democratic governance, and political corruption. He is currently working with an international team on a project entitled Participedia, which uses a web-based platform to collect data about democratic innovation and participatory governance around the world.

Graham Smith: The legitimacy of independent offices for future generations

Independent offices for future generations (OFGs) are rare amongst institutional designs that aim to increase the future sensivity of democracy in that they have been institutionalized in a (small) number of democratic polities. Drawing on the experience of the Israeli, Hungarian and Welsh Commissioners for Future Generations, the paper argues that an OFG faces at least two challenges to its legitimacy. The first relates to its capacity to adequately represent the plurality of interests within and across future generations. The second to its political fragility; its capacity to become a stable and influential part of the democratic infrastructure. The paper develops the apparently counterintuitive argument that both aspects of legitimacy can be enhanced through embedding systematic public participation in their decision-making processes.

Graham Smith is a professor of Politics and Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD) in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Westminster. His main research interests are in democratic theory and practice (particularly participatory democratic institutions), climate and environmental politics and the third sector/social economy. He is currently involved in a number of funded research projects, including Scholio (University of Connecticut), Participedia (SSHRC) and AssoDem (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness). Recently completed projects include Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit (ESRC) and Cherry-picking.

 

Nicole Curato: Future-making as practice of public deliberation

My presentation proposes the concept of ‘future-making’ as central of the everyday practice of public deliberation. By future-making, I refer to the ways in which political communities imagine, propose and contest their collective aspirations. For deliberative democracy to overcome the illiberal present, I argue that emphasis must be placed not only on citizens’ capacity for inclusive and authentic deliberation, but also in their capacity to aspire and develop the political agency needed to achieve their visions. Without this capacity, deliberative politics is limited by paralyzing and uninspiring pragmatism. Deliberative democracy, I argue, is hinged on the expectation that citizens who discuss the future have the power to shape them.

The perspective I offer in this presentation is based on five years of field research in communities affected by natural disasters and violent conflict in the Philippines. I offer ethnographic portraits demonstrating how vulnerable communities develop capacities to aspire amidst trauma and widespread suffering. My presentation also discusses the seemingly mundane yet behavior-shaping practices that hinder the pursuit of deliberative futures.

Nicole Curato is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She is currently working on a manuscript entitled ‘Democracy in the Age of Misery,’ which seeks to develop a defensible theory of democracy amidst widespread suffering. Her main research interests include deliberative democracy, contemporary social theory, and qualitative methods. Her work has been published in Policy Sciences, Current Sociology, European Political Science Review and Acta Politica, among others.

 

Time: April 24 – 25, 2019

Venue: Åbo Akademi University, Lecture hall Armfelt, Arken building
(Fabriksgatan 2), Turku, FINLAND

There is a growing scholarly interest in various types of survey experiments in the study of political behavior. This workshop focuses on empirical studies that examine the behavior of citizens and elites, with a particular emphasis on experimental methods.

LIVESTREAM available from 9.45 am EEST (24 April) and 9.30 am EEST (25 April) here:
https://aboakademi.zoom.us/wc/join/371568990?pwd=&tk= (browser link)
https://aboakademi.zoom.us/j/371568990 (Zoom app link)

Workshop programme (pdf)
Workshop poster (pdf)

Programme

Wednesday 24 April

09.45 Opening of the workshop, Maija Setälä, University of Turku

10.00 Keynote I: Diana Mutz, University of Pennsylvania: How much is one American worth?
Discussant: Kimmo Grönlund, Åbo Akademi University

11.15 Coffee

11.45 Keynote II: Rune Slothuus, Aarhus University: How political parties help structuring and shaping public opinion formation.
Discussant: Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen, University of Turku

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Lauri Rapeli, Åbo Akademi University: Citizens and long-term policy goals.
Discussant: Åsa von Schoultz, University of Helsinki

14.45 Kaisa Herne, Tampere University: The force of the argument source: A survey experiment on the evaluation of political arguments.
Discussant: Kim Strandberg, Åbo Akademi University

15.30 Coffee

15.45 Erkki Mäntymaa & Eija Pouta, Natural Resources Institute Finland: The effect of contract length on the willingness to participate in a landscape value trade
Discussant: Jonathan Kuyper, University of Belfast

 

***

Thursday 25 April

9.30 Keynote III: Sofie Marien, University of Leuven: On the macro-level effects of participatory processes on perceptions of legitimacy.
Discussant: Lauri Rapeli, Åbo Akademi University

10.45 Coffee

11.15 Keynote IV: Patrik Öhberg, University of Gothenburg:  Experimenting with politicians: What do politicians think of being part of experimental studies?
Discussant: Kaisa Herne, Tampere University

12.30 Lunch

13.30 Henrik Serup Christensen, Åbo Akademi University (with Maija Setälä, Kim Strandberg, Maija Jäske, Mikko Leino and Maria Bäck): The impact of Citizens’ Jury on referendum alternatives: Preliminary results.
Discussant: Juha Ylisalo, University of Turku

14.15 Wrap up

 

* * *

The event is free of charge and open to all.

Registration:
The registration for this workshop is closed.
Post-registration: please contact Mari Taskinen, mjtask(at)utu.fi.

Further information:
Please direct questions about the program to Lauri Rapeli, lauri.rapeli(at)abo.fi.

Organiser:  PALO – Participation in Long-Term Decision Making is a multidisciplinary research project that analyzes problems of practices of long-term decision-making. With the objective to strengthen democracy, PALO develops better practices for deliberative citizen participation. The consortium partners are University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University, Natural Resources Institute Finland and University of Tampere. The project is funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) at the Academy of Finland.

 

 

The Annual Conference of the Finnish Political Science Association was organized at the University of Turku on 8.–9. March 2018.

Alan M. Jacobs, Associate Professor of the University of British Columbia, delivered the keynote lecture on ”Policy-Making for the Long-Term. Puzzles and Agendas”. Jacobs’s visit was sponsored by the PALO project.

Presentation (pdf)
Lecture (video)

Alan M. Jacobs (University of British Columbia) is an Associate Professor of Political Science specializing in the comparative political economy of advanced industrialized democracies, the politics of public policy, political behavior, and qualitative and mixed methodology.

Jacobs’ first book, Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment (Cambridge, 2011, co-winner of the APSA award for the Best Book in Comparative Politics; winner of the APSA award for the Best Book Developing or Applying Qualitative Methods; and winner of the IPSA prize for the Best Book in Comparative Policy and Administration), examined how democratic governments manage long-term policy issues. This book and related articles have sought to understand the conditions under which elected governments are willing to impose short-term costs on their constituents in order to invest in long-term social benefits. Jacobs’ work in this area has sought to identify the distinctive features of the politics of intertemporal choice as compared to the more commonly analyzed politics of redistribution. Jacobs’ current projects focus on the politics of inequality, public attitudes toward policy tradeoffs and public-goods investment, and process-tracing and mixed-methods inquiry.

More information: http://politiikkapaivat.utu.fi/finnish-political-science-2018/