{"id":56,"date":"2019-06-06T00:00:03","date_gmt":"2019-06-06T00:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/?post_type=podcast&p=56"},"modified":"2020-11-16T19:45:57","modified_gmt":"2020-11-16T19:45:57","slug":"episode-10-the-reshaping-of-western-european-politics-with-christopher-green-pedersen","status":"publish","type":"podcast","link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/podcast\/episode-10-the-reshaping-of-western-european-politics-with-christopher-green-pedersen\/","title":{"rendered":"Episode 10: The Reshaping of Western European Politics with Christopher Green-Pedersen"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reporting from the field in Denmark, Brooke Shannon talks with Christopher Green-Pedersen about his new book, The Reshaping of Western European Politics<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Reporting from the field in Denmark, Brooke Shannon talks with Christopher Green-Pedersen about his new book, The Reshaping of Western European Politics.","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","episode_type":"audio","audio_file":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2019\/05\/The-Policy-Agenda-Ep-Denmark-Christoffer-Green-Pedersen.mp3","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"26.41M","filesize_raw":"27687968","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":""},"tags":[59,60,58,62,63,61],"categories":[],"series":[2],"class_list":{"0":"post-56","1":"podcast","2":"type-podcast","3":"status-publish","5":"tag-brooke-shannon","6":"tag-christopher-green-pedersen","7":"tag-enmark","8":"tag-europe","9":"tag-western-europe","10":"tag-western-politics","11":"series-the-policy-agenda","12":"entry"},"acf":{"related_episodes":"","hosts":[{"ID":638,"post_author":"38","post_date":"2020-10-27 15:48:58","post_date_gmt":"2020-10-27 15:48:58","post_content":"\n

Ph.D. candidate and teaching assistant in the department of government at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in research on local and urban policy, agendas, and Latinx politics.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Brooke Shannon","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"brooke-shannon","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-10-27 15:48:59","post_modified_gmt":"2020-10-27 15:48:59","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/?post_type=speaker&p=638","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"guests":[{"ID":598,"post_author":"38","post_date":"2020-07-01 17:23:18","post_date_gmt":"2020-07-01 17:23:18","post_content":"\n

Christoffer Green-Pedersen<\/strong> is professor of political science at Aarhus University, Denmark, and coeditor of Dismantling Public Policy<\/em>.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Christoffer Green-Pedersen","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"christoffer-green-pedersen","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-10-29 17:28:39","post_modified_gmt":"2020-10-29 17:28:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/?post_type=speaker&p=598","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"transcript":"

Hi, everyone, this is Brooke Shannon coming out July from artist Denmark. I’m here with Christopher<\/p>\n

Green Peterson, professor of political science at our whose university here in our house, who<\/p>\n

has a new book coming out this year by our on Oxford University Press. The book is<\/p>\n

called The Reshaping of West European Party Politics in Comparative Perspective. Welcome,<\/p>\n

Christopher. Thanks, Roland. Thanks for being here. So let’s just dove right in to<\/p>\n

some questions about the book, which is really exciting. So can you talk a little bit about<\/p>\n

the data that you used for this project? Yeah, the primary data source is kept coding<\/p>\n

off party manifestos in seven European countries back to 1980. A few countries have<\/p>\n

that bit further back, but that’s the core dataset as to I mean, party manifesto is a well-established<\/p>\n

data source for studying political parties. But what’s new here is that reappropriate the capital<\/p>\n

is being true to the party manifestos. And that’s the primary day. And some say yes. Yeah. So you’ve got<\/p>\n

to know that I’m excited about the cap coding scheme. Can you explain just a little bit<\/p>\n

about what cap versus the PSP, which our listeners might be a little bit more<\/p>\n

familiar with, how it compares? Yeah, I mean, the<\/p>\n

cap coding forces more so the tailor to true west European countries. So there’s a bit more. CORNISH<\/p>\n

Scheme is a bit developed, George covering some of the issues that are important to or which different parties call. So<\/p>\n

it’s very like policy issue. Yeah, and the big differences probably compared<\/p>\n

to the competitive manifesto project. Some people might know which a coded party manifesto for decades<\/p>\n

and have a very useful and then well-established dataset. But what’s really important is that unlike<\/p>\n

the cap coding scheme, this was never really an issue based coding scheme. There was a current scheme set up to capture<\/p>\n

different positions of parties, which means that they have some issues, but there are also many issues<\/p>\n

that are not really covered. So there was a deliberate choice that that to really study agendas<\/p>\n

and issue competition that should be in party politics. You need something more than this. MP<\/p>\n

Krolinsky So that was some really important starting point for the project. Awesome. And so<\/p>\n

in the book you really set up the party manifestos as a great way to study party competition,<\/p>\n

analyze policy issues and then issue UNASUR. So the US analogous to<\/p>\n

party manifestos would of course be party platforms just for listeners. But my question<\/p>\n

is how in terms of policy mechanisms, I suppose,<\/p>\n

how are party manifestos set up in this really great way to study these three? Yeah, I think<\/p>\n

it’s really from what you get out of parliament. The first is on what you don’t get often. I mean these are documents that<\/p>\n

parties produce around an election typically. It varies some somewhat by countries, but most<\/p>\n

countries rather extensive. So that campaign programs are also the more<\/p>\n

ideological expressions of what what the issues that parties find important. So they’re really good as<\/p>\n

in a starting more long term than that mix of party politics. So we get a chance for parties to step a little<\/p>\n

bit back from day-To-Day politics and say, what are the important issues that we want to focus<\/p>\n

on in a campaign? So I think and really useful to study for the politics over decades.<\/p>\n

So if you really want to study an election campaign, you probably start immediate aid and go crash. It goes<\/p>\n

on in election campaign, but it’s a really good chance to study showed that the involvement of party politics<\/p>\n

over decades and used the elections is just that, an opportunity to study the issues that parties find important.<\/p>\n

And then they’re right. I mean, they’re easily available and then and then produced over decades. But it’s really<\/p>\n

that the end of the captures something that is a little bit I mean, it is connected with the everyday politics,<\/p>\n

but it’s not sort of produced by everyday considerations, which I think would could you have a more short<\/p>\n

term picture of party politics? So the book is really about medium long term development of issue competition,<\/p>\n

Western Europe. I think the party manifesto should at that promise we will compare to other data<\/p>\n

sources. Awesome. Cool. So I<\/p>\n

my first substantive question for you is actually just the title of your first chapter, which<\/p>\n

is really great. What has happened to party politics in Western Europe? And I’m wondering, how has<\/p>\n

it changed and how has is this topic changing now? I think that the way the recent past on<\/p>\n

the book with a chapter on that is probably that, you know, it sounds like a really straightforward, simple question. It’s<\/p>\n

not actually being studied that intensively. And one of the reasons actually did. Because if you look at this<\/p>\n

data and so on. There are some issues that you can study, but you can really study detail issues. And<\/p>\n

so with the cap coding, I wish reducing it will to ask this question. So how does the whole polish it look<\/p>\n

like? Not just how is one specific issue develop, but what’s actually the whole<\/p>\n

picture? That wasn’t anything important. probablility. Well, the editor actually asked this question and actually<\/p>\n

studied. And also what’s really important is to study a number of issues compared<\/p>\n

to each other because a lot of studies which look at like immigration or the EU and how that<\/p>\n

I mean now that Israel. All by itself. But if you don’t, you’re not able to compare to what you’re going to<\/p>\n

do sometimes or state to change it and forget some of the broader picture. I don’t think<\/p>\n

are all. Finally, I find it probably. I mean, there are elements of the buildings and elements of change.<\/p>\n

Well, isn’t it? I mean, there’s a big literature on the new what you call new policies, new second dimensional voice to create<\/p>\n

politics and the rise of immigration, European integration, the environment, these type of issues. And I think<\/p>\n

the story is that it is true on a general level, but there’s much more course issue, of course,<\/p>\n

national variation in which issues actually get attention to that. That’s one<\/p>\n

empirical good conclusion. The other one is that there are some in a way so traditional<\/p>\n

economic welfare state related issues still play a role, but it’s been a huge change in the issues that play<\/p>\n

a role. Right. So it’s the rise of health care, education, these type of issues<\/p>\n

and expensive issues like depression, macro economic issues that there’s some other big tension. And then<\/p>\n

we should be in party politics. Yeah, that was fascinating to me that while<\/p>\n

these traditional issues like macro economics and business regulation and things like<\/p>\n

this have decreased, they still take up large share of the agenda. Certainly does disappear.<\/p>\n

I mean, but right. Especially if you are the starting point for the progress of the 80s. And if you look at many of the countries,<\/p>\n

then macro economic issues where really what’s possible about the economic crisis after<\/p>\n

the oil price and so on. So micro economics was really the cause of<\/p>\n

politics. And that has changed. But it’s not that these issues have disappeared. And you can also see that they<\/p>\n

do come they do rise again a little bit after the financial crisis, but not but not to the level that<\/p>\n

you saw index needs. And it’s interesting. It was as these issues decrease,<\/p>\n

the amount of attention for emergent issues begins as almost<\/p>\n

like a very small piece. And then then by decades as you look at it, it’s like the triple<\/p>\n

in importance and things like that. And while they may still be 20 to 25<\/p>\n

percent of what parties are talking about or this many, this percentage of parties discussing the issue,<\/p>\n

it really emerges as a huge change in shift in party politics. That’s<\/p>\n

really cool. Yeah. Okay, cool. So moving on to the more<\/p>\n

issue based chapters of the book, you look at five big ones which are immigration,<\/p>\n

environment, EU integration, education and healthcare. And I think they’re split up really interesting<\/p>\n

through like a reflective quality almost how immigration and environment reflect each other as to<\/p>\n

education and healthcare. Meaning like these first two are owned<\/p>\n

almost by babies like traditional left right sides, but<\/p>\n

they’re sort of forced on the agenda by these minority parties, which really speaks to your previous<\/p>\n

work, I think of how minority parties shape agendas with Peter Martinsson. Here are his.<\/p>\n

So about immigration. How have well, I guess backing up about<\/p>\n

immigration. So ownership is really strong on this issue in the US<\/p>\n

context as well. And I’m thinking that it’s really emerged in recent years with the<\/p>\n

West sort of international shifts that we see also occurring in in parts of Europe,<\/p>\n

Western Europe included. But how are these international trends? And I guess I’m sort of sub texting<\/p>\n

like Trump and on the right, I mean, but how has this affected<\/p>\n

issues like immigration in the Western European agenda? Know, I think there are two things. One is that, I<\/p>\n

mean, the increasing number of immigrants, I mean, you can see that in the funding it does affect. I mean, this is doesn’t<\/p>\n

come out of nothing. I mean, the refugee crisis in Europe and so starved of developments to<\/p>\n

affect the level of attention to. You can see it’s rising in all countries, but it’s also substantial<\/p>\n

variation in how this actually gets taken into poll party politics. And of course,<\/p>\n

the emergence of radical right wing parties is important. But there’s a chapter as it does start and really<\/p>\n

matters how more traditional and mainstream both parties affect this. And one way to draft<\/p>\n

them is especially coalition consideration showing you’re seeing about this big mainstream policy<\/p>\n

in Europe. We are in the torch winning government poll. Then a lot of what shapes our interest is<\/p>\n

it does. This is due to the emergence of radical right wing parties offer possibility of winning government power<\/p>\n

in new ways. And if this is the case, they’re actually also willing to try to push this issue<\/p>\n

much harder than there are other countries where they they don’t want to form coalitions. And<\/p>\n

it’s not possible to win government majorities, radical right wing parties, then then they’re much less interested<\/p>\n

in really playing this immigration card. William emphasizing the issue. So I think one one thing that comes<\/p>\n

off the chapter is really how important these coalition dynamics actually is for how. I mean, it’s an<\/p>\n

issue with I think that gets more attention and has a lot of potential. But there’s potential. How this is<\/p>\n

used by politics really depends on the coalition dynamics. And the large part parties<\/p>\n

are really the focus of the book as we. All right. Is sort of ancillary parties are treated as such, which tell me that there’s a lot<\/p>\n

of leadersand. The rise of new parties in the role, which I think is a obviously important policy. What’s really<\/p>\n

what I’m going to try to bring forward in the book is that it really also depends how they interact with the mainstream<\/p>\n

parties and interact. Also really means coalition politics. There was a lot of studies of how major parties<\/p>\n

were actually these new parties to the move left, right out with their decrees increase issue attention<\/p>\n

policy. What has been missing is to think this through in terms of coalition dynamics would<\/p>\n

mean none of that is simply based on broad consideration. So do we get more or less work from moving left, right<\/p>\n

and so on? But he is on the move when and want to win government power holders. These issues should no opportunities<\/p>\n

or sometimes we avoid issues because there are coalitions reasons why these issues are problematic.<\/p>\n

Sure. Do you? Do you expect or.<\/p>\n

Yeah. Do you expect with the data and with these coalition relationships, which of course have cross-national variation,<\/p>\n

I know Denmark was really strong in this coalition relationship. Do you expect that this<\/p>\n

that there’s a tension in the party manifestos is a bit of lip service to these,<\/p>\n

or is it? Does it transfer into policy outcomes that are specific on immigration?<\/p>\n

I think it does translate into I mean, especially if you see that these case, which is pretty pronounced on immigration. You can also trace<\/p>\n

the positive. I mean, the studies that look more well detailed, that positive just concluded<\/p>\n

find that once parties I mean, parties can just talk about these issues out. Just just in general, they’ve<\/p>\n

all come up with specific proposals. Maybe when they emphasize issues, they will say, okay, we want to do this, we want to do<\/p>\n

that. And then they’re winning. When government poll, they actually tried to implement these policies. I mean, it’s<\/p>\n

it joke. So it turns out this really was policy and content, right? You can’t. Mean of course you can. Someone<\/p>\n

talk very generally about issues. But but to convince voters, you need to be specific, saying we want to limit<\/p>\n

immigration, that we want Trump wants to build a wall and do other things. They actually tried<\/p>\n

to push this and tried to implement it. If they can, they will do it. Yeah. So it is really consequential. Once<\/p>\n

you you know, it’s not just lip service. It has implications. Once they wouldn’t comment.<\/p>\n

Sure. And there’s a few other explanations people have offered for this<\/p>\n

type of thing, party competition being one. And in your in your book, it really shows<\/p>\n

that the driving factor is this coalition building. Can you speak a little bit about about<\/p>\n

the theory of party competition and maybe why were you surprised that it didn’t come through a strong.<\/p>\n

I mean, I worked with this before, so in a way. I mean, was<\/p>\n

that the story I wanted to tell about the policy? BUSH Well, I mean, a lot of that comes down to the<\/p>\n

motive to attribute to parties. And I think it’s clear when you work with these more traditional<\/p>\n

mainstream parties than winning government power is actually quite a central driving force for these parties.<\/p>\n

So I think what’s really important is to think this through until the how how it has implications for how<\/p>\n

they compete with other parties. And of course, they compete for votes, but they also compete for<\/p>\n

a fair go for winning government office. And that’s actually quite a strong driving force for many of these parties.<\/p>\n

So I think that what’s really important to recognize, it’s too true. True?<\/p>\n

Yeah, the institutional forces seem very strong, especially across nations<\/p>\n

and how they end up working together sort of in the international EU context,<\/p>\n

which is pretty fascinating, especially for an issue like immigration that has these international,<\/p>\n

national and even down to local politics implications. Yeah, yeah, it’s great.<\/p>\n

Okay, cool. So as one thing I was wondering, especially<\/p>\n

as I got to the later chapters in the book, is these new emergent issues sort<\/p>\n

of the left version of immigration almost being environmental policy and environmental issues.<\/p>\n

Do you expect through coalition building as they continuously get on the agenda<\/p>\n

and maybe become more adapted or adopted into these pop into these manifestos?<\/p>\n

Do you expect these policies will become more like education and health care, which<\/p>\n

affect everybody and are on all of these party issues? Well,<\/p>\n

I mean, I think that they they all of the parties pay some<\/p>\n

attention to them, but there’s much more. So traditional ownership around some of these issues.<\/p>\n

And so I think in terms of the electoral profile as on, there’s still a huge difference. And they’re also substantially<\/p>\n

different issues. And one of the things that the book wants to bring forward is also that there’s a lot<\/p>\n

of liberal blogs out and likes to talk about conflict lines. And that makes sense or which makes<\/p>\n

a lot of sense. But they sometimes underestimate how issues are different and also how this affects<\/p>\n

competition. And I think that’s really important once you get to the competition between the health care, education,<\/p>\n

but also the environment, immigration perhaps. I mean, substantially different when you get to policies and that<\/p>\n

actually has an implication for how parties can compete around them. Sure. Were there any<\/p>\n

surprises whenever you are looking at the policy policy specific, especially<\/p>\n

when comparing like the seven Western European countries say one<\/p>\n

thing a lot of direction. I mean, there are, of course, national differences, but they also take relatively<\/p>\n

strong coach national similarities. I think there was one thing that came out in the book. There are some pronounced Rorish<\/p>\n

of some issues behaving differently. But it was a lot of similarities in the way these go agendas<\/p>\n

have developed. And I think that that’s also an important lesson, that sometimes the motivation,<\/p>\n

of course, issues is even bigger than the course national regulation. I think that that’s also some of the one of<\/p>\n

the points I want to make in the book and that the issues really matter. And there are some<\/p>\n

large national general tendencies and some ranch, some of the issues that do. I mean, if you look at the environment, I mean,<\/p>\n

there’s been I mean, there was some environmental issues that were big in all countries back in the 70s,<\/p>\n

much more. But now climate change and these type of pictures are pretty general. And the general forces<\/p>\n

that hit on these policies, when you get through like health care, the whole technological change around<\/p>\n

health care is really important role of politics around this issue.<\/p>\n

Are any of these issues, do any of them experience like patterns of diffusion?<\/p>\n

Yeah, that’s a good question. I think that I haven’t looked that much into the book. I think<\/p>\n

it’s a little bit different tradition, tangled diffusion from just the fact that these countries actually experienced quite<\/p>\n

similar pressures of problem challenges. I mean, that that they do actually.<\/p>\n

I mean, the environmental problems and then and health care problems in Toronto. Of course, they’re told to each of them.<\/p>\n

But it’s also very much as though the similarities and challenges they face. So she want a health care system.<\/p>\n

The pressure you face from this ever increasing number of new possibilities,<\/p>\n

new treatments, and then then then a new technology. And in health goes. I mean, there’s only diffusion of<\/p>\n

on policy solutions. But in terms of the fundamental pressure on these countries, I think that’s not such<\/p>\n

a story of too much sort of diffusion. That’s more so the similarities and the challenges you face. Yeah.<\/p>\n

And the problems and the problem definitely on TV and things like this. Absolutely. So I think that the fusion discussion<\/p>\n

is much more relevant once you come through policy solutions and you dig more into what two countries actually<\/p>\n

do show in terms of policies. But if you look at the DNA and then the<\/p>\n

selling face and initial competition, I think that I mean, it’s different forces than diffusion.<\/p>\n

So that will be the next book, maybe a couple. So one<\/p>\n

issue I think that’s been as a short term issue in the news a lot because of Brexit and<\/p>\n

things, but has really experienced a downturn as a trend when all these<\/p>\n

countries excuse me and cross nationally as well is EU integration.<\/p>\n

And it makes sense that it would increase in the 90s and then sort of taper off in terms of attention<\/p>\n

just because the policies had been made and it happened.<\/p>\n

And I think the book makes a really cool point that national parties<\/p>\n

put EU integration in their manifestos less just because the deliverables<\/p>\n

are harder. Do you find that across across countries?<\/p>\n

And then contrasting with the other issues which are markedly easier<\/p>\n

to make a case that there are more national or domestic issues? Do you find any type<\/p>\n

of differences, especially EU integration as a whole, rather than EU skepticism, which is sort<\/p>\n

of like owned by these French Somalia? I think it definitely matters. I mean, there are many reasons<\/p>\n

why mainstream parties are reluctant to drop to talk about issues. But one thing<\/p>\n

I think it’s actually really, really hard to deliver on this. You should. I mean, think about the May government<\/p>\n

and in the UK, I mean, how difficult is this actually to to promise anything and then get it to through<\/p>\n

the EU’s system? And again, this is an issue aspect of the European integration that you really have<\/p>\n

to think about. And I think, of course, there’s a lot of religions on EU integration. But one thing that it does<\/p>\n

is to compare the EU to other issues is to sing about through the EU integration as a policy<\/p>\n

issue that you can emphasize and what you get out of this as a party compared to draw other issues like<\/p>\n

immigration place. So I think there’s a there’s a pronounced difference in how<\/p>\n

mainstream right parties have been when you get these fringe parties. So radical right wing parties to emphasize<\/p>\n

immigration, European integration. I think there’s a big difference in how you react to them because European integration.<\/p>\n

I think they’ve been in a way much less influential in most countries because it’s really hard to<\/p>\n

follow major to take up European integration. It’s much easier to take up immigration and promise<\/p>\n

policy measures that you can actually implement. And to West European integration, especially if you want to be in government,<\/p>\n

then it’s really tricky to come out with a promise of when a reformed European Union only one. Isn’t<\/p>\n

that because of the chance that you can deliver really, really small on that? So I think that that’s a<\/p>\n

big. And I think it’s really it’s really interesting to compare to to look at the EU as a policy issue and then compare<\/p>\n

to two other issues. I think that that helps a lot in terms of explaining ways he has has had surprisingly<\/p>\n

little party competition. It’s Tokyo combustion. This is I mean, that plays<\/p>\n

a huge role. But I think Brexit, it was a result of a very unique dynamic of this<\/p>\n

British referendum. I mean, yeah. And especially because in the book, it’s really interesting going<\/p>\n

back to the CAP scheme that EU integration is really within a few<\/p>\n

codes, but it has implications and consequences across major topics. So<\/p>\n

it’s really hard to narrow down without doing a control of like these mass data<\/p>\n

that’s still out there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that that’s one of the I mean,<\/p>\n

I mean that’s a challenge for the capturing directly handle an issue like the EU. But<\/p>\n

I think for the for the manifestos is maybe less of a problem because parties rarely<\/p>\n

talk so much in policy detail. Role of European integration. Show more wanted to show why Europeans creativity<\/p>\n

rose a bit general above serenity or that a general future to your opinion so<\/p>\n

that it’s more China. If we look at different type of data, which are closer to the policy process here, that’s<\/p>\n

more tricky to to disentangle the European integration. Yeah, definitely. Okay.<\/p>\n

So that wraps it up for the substantive questions about the book. Before I let you go, we have one last question<\/p>\n

for you and ask if you can give us a recommend, a recommendation for a work in political science<\/p>\n

that our listener should should read. It doesn’t have to be a new or just out book, but it can be something<\/p>\n

that left a lasting impression, etc. as intolerable judicial process for people to read<\/p>\n

it. Then this is the process in the US, but not Jones again. I think it’s I mean, if you<\/p>\n

still think there’s a lot of inspiration for the book I wrote, it’s not so different in the set up. And then then,<\/p>\n

then, then then the question takes up. There’s a lot of exploration how you could do a book and then then use the data<\/p>\n

sources like the cut quoted officials in a lot of new ways. So I think there’s a lot of inspiration for me<\/p>\n

looking at this book. In a way. My book is it’s very different. There’s still there’s still a lot of inspiration shows<\/p>\n

to recommend people to take a look at that book again. Great. Yeah. Actually, as our last note<\/p>\n

while I was reading the book just up the setup and the way the chapters are outlined, I definitely<\/p>\n

was thinking of as I read and not wow, great theoretical chapters, the<\/p>\n

data, the empirical questions over these policy issues and really feels like a like a perfect<\/p>\n

complement to agendas. But I think that’s to the project in the thinking that, you know, that book doesn’t<\/p>\n

test any of the arguments. Don’t make this laugh, inspiration, how to sing about politics in terms<\/p>\n

of a deposit into thinking the same. But that’s been one of the ambitions of the book. Cool.<\/p>\n

Well, thank you so much again, Dr. GREENE Peterson. This has been a great conversation. sanclemente.<\/p>\n"},"episode_featured_image":false,"episode_player_image":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2018\/12\/The-Policy-Agenda-Logo3-e1545063000555.png","download_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/podcast-download\/56\/episode-10-the-reshaping-of-western-european-politics-with-christopher-green-pedersen.mp3","player_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/thepolicyagenda\/podcast-player\/56\/episode-10-the-reshaping-of-western-european-politics-with-christopher-green-pedersen.mp3","audio_player":"

Episode 10: The Reshaping of Western European Politics with Christopher Green-Pedersen<\/a><\/blockquote>