Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reclaiming party politics research

Response to Anika Gauja and Karina Kosiara-Pedersen. 2021. Decline, adaptation and relevance: political parties and their researchers in the twentieth century. European Political Science 20(1):123–38

  • Research
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a 2021 Special Issue in European Political Science, Anika Gauja and Karina Kosiara-Pedersen review the sub-field of party politics research. In doing so, they argue party politics scholarship reflects the broader development of the political science discipline, illustrating the evolving relationship between politics researchers and the organisations they study. In this reply, we argue that the party politics sub-field reflects the wider discipline in another crucial respect—it continues to marginalise gender politics scholarship. We demonstrate that a gendered lens fundamentally transforms key questions in the field around what party politics scholars study, and how and why they conduct their research, with relevant consequences for whose work is included. In failing to engage with this scholarship, “mainstream” party politics scholars are (re)producing unequal power relations and hierarchies within the discipline, while also depriving themselves of the capacity to address fully key questions of representation, democracy, continuity and change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the article title of Gauja and Kosiara-Pedersen’s (2021) suggests a focus on the twentieth century, the article itself focuses on the past 20 years of political party research.

  2. Women or gender equality is also included as response options in two variables (party support group and mobilisation issues, respectively).

  3. Here, we echo the arguments of van Biezen and Saward (2008: 21), who make a similar argument with regard to the lack of dialogue between political party scholars and normative democratic theorists.

References

  • Ahrens, P., S. Erzeel, E. Evans, J. Kantola, R. Kuhar, and E. Lombardo. 2021. Gender and politics research in Europe: Towards a consolidation of a flourishing political science subfield? European Political Science 20 (1): 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolino, S., and P. Mair. 1990. Identity, competition and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European electorates, 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashevkin, S. 1993. Toeing the lines. Women and party politics in English Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashevkin, S. 2010. When do outsiders break in? Institutional circumstances of party leadership victories by women in Canada. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 48 (1): 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., O. Folke, T. Persson, and J. Rickne. 2017. Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: Theory and evidence from Sweden. American Economic Review 107 (8): 2204–2242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E. 2013. Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment. Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and M. Kenny. 2015. Revealing the “Secret Garden”: The informal dimensions of political recruitment. Politics & Gender 11 (4): 748–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and M. Kenny. 2016. Comparing candidate selection: A feminist institutionalist approach. Government and Opposition 51 (3): 370–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and P. Zetterberg. 2011. Removing quotas, maintaining representation. Overcoming gender inequalities in political party recruitment. Representation 47 (2): 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and P. Zetterberg. 2016a. Political parties and gender quota implementation: The role of bureaucratized candidate selection procedures. Comparative Politics 48 (3): 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and P. Zetterberg. 2016b. Gender equality reforms on an uneven playing field: Candidate selection and quota implementation in electoral authoritarian Tanzania. Government and Opposition 51 (3): 464–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnegård, E., and P. Zetterberg. 2019. Political parties, formal selection criteria, and gendered parliamentary representation. Party Politics 25 (3): 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bustelo, M., L. Ferguson, and M. Forest, eds. 2016. The politics of feminist knowledge transfer. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R., and S. Childs. 2013. The impact imperative: Here come the women. Political Studies Review 11 (2): 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R., and S. Childs. 2014. Parents in parliament: “Where’s mum?”. Political Quarterly 85 (4): 487–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caul, M. 2001. Political parties and the adoption of gender quotas: A cross-national analysis. The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1214–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celis, K., and S. Childs. 2018. Gender and conservatism. Politics and Gender 14 (1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celis, K., S. Erzeel, and L. Mügge. 2015. Intersectional puzzles: Understanding inclusion and equality in political recruitment. Politics and Gender 11 (4): 765–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celis, K., S. Childs, and J. Kantola. 2016. Gender and party politics. Party Politics 22 (5): 571–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, L., and F. Mackay. 2017. What’s in a Name? Mapping the terrain of informal institutions and gender politics. In Gender and informal institutions, ed. G. Waylen. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, L., and F. Mackay. 2021. Feminist critical friends: Dilemmas of feminist engagement with governance and gender reform agendas. European Journal of Politics and Gender 4 (3): 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, C., and M. Tavits. 2011. Informal influences in selecting female candidates. Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 460–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, S. 2013. Intraparty democracy: A gendered critique and a feminist agenda. In The challenges of intra-party democracy, ed. W.P. Cross and R. Katz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, S., and D. Dahlerup. 2018. Increasing women’s representation in national parliaments: The involvement and impact of gender politics scholars. European Journal of Politics and Gender 1 (1–2): 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, C.N., and T. Raney. 2018. Canada’s member-to-member code of conduct on sexual harassment in the house of commons: Progress or regress? Canadian Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell-Meyers, K., Evans, E., and K. Shin. 2020. Women’s parties. Politics and Gender 16 (1): 4–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daddow, O., and I. Hertner. 2021. Interpreting toxic masculinity in political parties: A framework for analysis. Party Politics 27 (4): 743–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlerup, D., and M. Leyenaar, eds. 2013. Breaking male dominance in old democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson-Schmich, L. 2006. Implementation of political party gender quotas: Evidence from the German Länder 1990–2000. Party Politics 12 (2): 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., and C. Craven. 2016. Feminist ethnography. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring, H., and S. Regel. 2019. Party facts: A database of political parties worldwide. Party Politics 25 (2): 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIGE. 2021. Gender Statistics Database. Major Political Parties. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/wmidm/wmidm_pol/wmidm_pol_part. Accessed Jan 7, 2022

  • Engeli, I. 2020. Gender and sexuality research in the age of populism: Lessons for political science. European Political Science 19 (2): 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. 2016. Feminist allies and strategic partners: Exploring the relationship between the women’s movement and political parties. Party Politics 22 (5): 631–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E., and M. Kenny. 2019. The women’s equality party: Emergence, organisation and challenges. Political Studies 67 (4): 855–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, L. 2019. Gender training: A transformative tool for gender equality. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, O., L. Freidenvall, and J. Rickne. 2015. Gender quotas and ethnic minority representation: Swedish evidence from a longitudinal mixed methods study. Politics and Gender 11 (2): 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, S. 2005. Women and politics in Chile. London: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, S., and J. Piscopo. 2008. Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics and Gender 4 (3): 393–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, K.D., M. Hinojosa, and J.M. Piscopo. 2017. Still left behind: Gender, Political parties, and Latin America’s pink tide. Social Politics 27 (3): 465–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, K.D., M. Hinojosa, and J.M. Piscopo. 2021. Women to the rescue: The gendered effects of public discontent on legislative nomination in Latin America. Party Politics 27 (3): 465–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatto, M., and K.N. Wylie. 2021. Informal institutions and gendered candidate selection in Brazilian parties. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688211008842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauja, A., and K. Kosiara-Pedersen. 2021. Decline, adaptation and relevance: Political parties and their researchers in the twentieth century. European Political Science 20 (1): 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, M., K. Dommett, and B. Prosser. 2018. A recipe for impact? Exploring knowledge requirements in the UK Parliament and beyond. Evidence and Policy 14 (2): 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geha, C. 2019. The myth of women’s political empowerment within lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing system. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 40 (4): 498–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghica, L. 2021. Who are we? The diversity puzzle in European political science. European Political Science 20 (1): 58–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, A. 2007. Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics and Gender 3 (2): 248–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R.Y., and G. Rahat. 2010. Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., P. Paxton, A. Clayton, and P. Zetterberg. 2017. Quota Adoption and Reform Over Time (QAROT), 1947–2015. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

  • IADB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2021. Géneros y partidos politicos en American Latina. https://www.iadb.org/es/generos-y-partidos-politicos-en-america-latina. Accessed 5 July 2021

  • International IDEA, Inter-parliamentary Union and Stockholm University. 2021. Gender Quotas Database. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas. Accessed 5 July 2021

  • IPU. 2016. Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPU. 2021. Global and regional averages of women in national parliaments: situation as of 1 June 2021. https://data.ipu.org/women-averages. Accessed 1 July 2021.

  • Jensenius, F.R. 2016. Competing inequalities? On the intersection of gender and ethnicity in candidate nominations in Indian elections. Government and Opposition 51 (3): 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.E. 2017. The gender of informal politics: Russia, Iceland and twenty-first century male dominance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, S., R. Bakker, L. Hooghe, G. Marks, J. Polk, J. Rovny, M. Steenbergen and M.A. Vachudova. Forthcoming. Chapel hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102420

  • Juvonen, T. 2020. Out Lesbian and Gay Politicians in A Multiparty System. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1182. Accessed 4 November 2021

  • Kantola, J., and E. Lombardo. 2020. Populism and feminist politics. International Political Science Review 41 (5): 561–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S., and W.J. Crotty, eds. 2006. Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1994. How parties organize. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M. 2013. Gender and political recruitment: Theorizing institutional change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M., and T. Verge. 2013. Decentralization, political parties and women’s representation: Evidence from Spain and Britain. Publius: the Journal of Federalism. 43 (1): 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M., and T. Verge. 2015. Critical perspectives on gender and political recruitment. Politics and Gender 11 (4): 746–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M., and T. Verge. 2016. Opening up the black box: Gender and candidate selection in A New Era. Government and Opposition 51 (3): 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittilson, M.C. 2006. Challenging parties, changing parliaments: Women and elected office in contemporary Western Europe. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krook, M.L. 2009. Quotas for women in politics: Gender and candidate selection reform worldwide. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krook, M.L. 2018. Westminster too: On sexual harassment in british politics. Political Quarterly 89 (1): 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunovich, S., and P. Paxton. 2005. Pathways to power: The role of political parties in women’s national political representation. American Journal of Sociology 111 (2): 505–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, S., P. Meier, P. and B. Sauer. forthcoming. Implementing gender quotas in political representation: Resisting institutions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Lipset, S.M., and S. Rokkan, eds. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. Toronto: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J. 1998. Gendering research in political science. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J. 2005. Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J., and P. Norris, eds. 1993. Gender and party politics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V. 2020. How are political institutions gendered? Political Studies 68 (3): 543–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhiste, M. 2015. Party gatekeepers’ support for viable female candidacy in PR-list systems. Politics and Gender 11 (1): 89–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lührmann, A., N. Düpont, M. Higashijima, Y.B. Kavasoglu, K.L. Marquardt, M. Bernhard, H. Döring, A. Hicken, M. Laebens, S.I. Lindberg, J. Medzihorsky, A. Neundorf, O.J. Reuter, S. Ruth–Lovell, K.R.Weghorst, N. Wiesehomeier, J. Wright, N. Alizada, P. Bederke, L. Gastaldi, S. Grahn, G. Hindle, N. Ilchenko, J. von Römer, S. Wilson, D. Pemstein, and B. Seim. 2020. Codebook Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V–Party) V1.Varieties of Democracy (V–Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vpartydsv1

  • Mackay, F., M. Kenny, and L. Chappell. 2010. New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review 31 (5): 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, D.H. 2020. Gendered Institutions and Women’s Political Representation in Africa. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maliniak, D., R. Powers, and B.F. Walter. 2013. The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization 67 (4): 889–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros, M., B. Forest, and C. Erl. 2019. Where women stand: Parliamentary candidate selection in Canada. Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mügge, L., E. Evans, and I. Engeli. 2016. Gender in European political science education: Taking stock and future directions. European Political Science 15 (3): 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R. 2010. Parties, gender quotas and candidate selection in France. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R. 2014. Quotas for men: Reframing gender quotas as a means of improving representation for all. American Political Science Review 108 (3): 520–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. 2006. Recruitment. In Handbook of party politics, ed. R.S. Katz and W.J. Crotty. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., and J. Lovenduski. 1995. Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the british parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, D.Z. 2015. Rising to the top: Gender, political performance, and party leadership in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 1022–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscopo, J., and M. Kenny. 2020. The gender ambition gap in comparative perspective. European Journal of Politics and Gender 3 (1): 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poguntke, T., S.E. Scarrow, and P.D. Webb. 2020. PPDB_Round1a_1b_consolidated_v1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NBWDFZ, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:7TqxInvGFY2Kh4OGcviQ+A==

  • Poguntke, T., S.E. Scarrow, P.D. Webb, E.H. Allern, N. Aylott, I. van Biezen, E. Calossi, M. Costa Lobo, W.P. Cross, K. Deschouwer, Z. Enyedi, E. Fabre, D.M. Farrell, A. Gauja, E. Pizzimenti, P. Kopecký, R. Koole, W.C. Müller, K. Kosiara-Pedersen, G. Rahat, A. Szczerbiak, E. van Haute, and T. Verge. 2016. Party rules, party resources and the politics of parliamentary democracies: How parties organize in the 21st century. Party Politics 22 (6): 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, V. 2006. Political parties and social structure in the developing world. In Handbook of party politics, ed. R.S. Katz and W.J. Crotty. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roza, V., B. Llanos, and G. Garzón de la Roza. 2011. Gender and political parties far from parity. Stockholm: International IDEA and Inter-American Development Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smrek, M. 2022. When is access to political capital gendered? Lessons from the Czech parliament. Parliamentary Affairs 75 (1): 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stambough, S.J., and V.R. O’Regan. 2007. Republican lambs and the democratic pipeline: Partisan differences in the nomination of female gubernatorial candidates. Politics and Gender 3 (3): 349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teele, D., and K. Thelen. 2017. Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 50 (2): 433–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M., and R. Pelletier. 2001. More women constituency party presidents: A strategy for increasing the number of women candidates in Canada? Party Politics 7 (2): 157–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, A.M., and M. Hughes. 2018. Methods, methodology and epistemology in the study of gender and politics. European Journal of Politics and Gender 1 (2): 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Biezen, I., and ER. Rashkova. 2013. Gender politics and party regulation. Representation 4 (4): 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Biezen, I., and M. Saward. 2008. Democratic theorists and party scholars: Why they don’t talk to each other, and why they should. Perspectives on Politics 6 (1): 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandeleene, A. 2014. Gender quotas and “women-friendly” candidate selection: Evidence from Belgium. Representation 50 (3): 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T. 2015. The gender regime of political parties: Feedback effects between supply and demand. Politics and Gender 11 (4): 754–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T. 2020. Political party gender action plans: Pushing gender change forward beyond quotas. Party Politics 26 (2): 238–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T. 2022. Too few, too little: Parliaments’ response to sexism and sexual harassment. Parliamentary Affairs 75 (1): 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T., and S. Claveria. 2018. Gendered political resources: The case of party office. Party Politics 24 (5): 536-s548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T., and M. de la Fuente. 2014. Playing with different cards: Party politics, gender quotas and women’s empowerment. International Political Science Review 35 (1): 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T., and A. Troupel. 2011. Unequals among equals: Party strategic discrimination and quota laws. French Politics 9 (3): 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verloo, M., ed. 2018. Varieties of opposition to gender equality in Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkens, A, T. Burst, W. Krause, P. Lehmann, M. Theres, M, S. Regel, B Weßels, L. Zehnter. 2021. The manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2021a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2021a

  • Ware, A. 1995. Political parties and party systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, L. 2014. Using statistical methods to study institutions. Politics and Gender 10 (4): 661–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ingrid van Biezen, Holger Döring, Nils Düpont and Paul Bederke for their constructive comments on earlier drafts and sections of this paper, as well as the Editors of European Political Science for their helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15A George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LD, UK

    Meryl Kenny

  2. Department of Government, Uppsala University, Box 514, 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden

    Elin Bjarnegård

  3. Department of Politics, Birkbeck, University of London, 10 Gower Street, London, WC1E 6HJ, UK

    Joni Lovenduski

  4. Politics and International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, Surrey, UK

    Sarah Childs

  5. Politics and International Relations, Goldsmiths, University of London, Lewisham Way, London, SE14 6NW, UK

    Elizabeth Evans

  6. Department of Political and Social Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005, Barcelona, Spain

    Tània Verge

Authors
  1. Meryl Kenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elin Bjarnegård
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joni Lovenduski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Childs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tània Verge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meryl Kenny.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kenny, M., Bjarnegård, E., Lovenduski, J. et al. Reclaiming party politics research. Eur Polit Sci 21, 274–291 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-022-00362-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-022-00362-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation