Keywords

1 Introduction

In general, theories of political science, international relations, and public administration are based on general principles. Hence, a small country is assumed to be simply a smaller version of a large country, and while traditionally ignoring size as an independent variable, differences between small and larger countries are often traced back to differences in political regimes, administrative structures, or cultural differences. More recently, researchers have focused on the following questions among others: the importance of scale, as in Thorhallsson’s (2006, 2019) studies of small states in the context of EU decision-making; public administration (Randma-Liiv & Sarapuu, 2019); education in small states (Godfrey Baldacchino, 2011); and the state of democracy in small states (Corbett & Veenendaal, 2018). The aim of this chapter is to add to this increasingly robust series of small studies by exploring the institutionalization of political science in higher education in small states, through a comparison of Estonia, Iceland, Malta, and Slovenia. As the concept of institutionalization has been explored more fully in the opening chapter of this volume, here we will concentrate on the concept of size.

What constitutes “small” or “large” is highly relative and often value-laden. Thorhallsson (2006, p. 8) outlines six characteristics that are helpful when defining small states: fixed size, sovereignty size, political size, economic size, perceptual size, and preference size. The first, which relates to the sizes of the population and territory, is the most common indicator used to define the size of countries and the one that will be used in this discussion. However, there is no fixed population benchmark, and various authors have used the indicator in different ways. Randma-Liiv and Sarapuu (2019) point out that the cutoff point is usually set somewhere between one million and three million, while countries with populations below 100,000 are often categorized into a subgroup of microstates. In the European context, there are 12 countries with a population of between 100,000 and three million. The four countries chosen for this study are situated at opposite ends of this scale, with Iceland firmly at the lower end with a population of 350,000, followed by Malta with 460,000 inhabitants. Estonia lies toward the other end of the scale, with around 1.3 million people, as does Slovenia with its population of two million. Iceland and Malta both belong to the separate research field of island studies, which frequently overlaps with small-state studies (Godfrey Baldacchino, 2004).

In addition to population size, the concept of sovereignty size is useful in this context, as it refers to the state’s ability to maintain some form of minimum state structure and to actively participate in international politics (Thorhallsson, 2006). This concept thus refers to both the internal and external capacity of a given state, although in this context, it will only refer to the state’s internal capacity to formulate and implement independent policies in higher education, specifically within the domain of political science. As the introduction to this volume explains, the specific nature of the profession of political scientist is important as it is closely connected to statecraft, and is underpinned by strong ethical assumptions. Due to its dependency on democratic governance and its normative vocation, political science is subject to changes in both national and international contexts more than any other academic field.

Our aim is to explore how size affects the capacity of four small European states to institutionalize political science within their higher education systems. However, what we see is that small European states defy their “smallness” and tend to create and nurture their own national political science establishments. The question of how they achieve this is the focus of this chapter. In particular, we are interested in how small states—while still embracing internationalization—stabilize and reproduce political science at the level of national universities, and which factors drive, enable or, on the contrary, inhibit or prevent, the institutionalization of political science in small states.

2 Political Science and Higher Education in Relation to Size

In the globalized world of high technology and innovation, higher education is increasingly seen as the most important indicator of a country’s vitality and robustness. The traditional view of the small-state approach to higher education has been that the delivery of higher education and cutting-edge research at home is both unachievable and inappropriate (Baldacchino, 2011). Studies of the development of small states’ higher education show that small states were often seen to be better off by contributing to the establishment of regional institutions, due to their lack of financial, administrative, and intellectual resources. From that perspective, they were advised to harness the technological possibilities of distance learning, often provided by internationally reputable academic centers, and encouraged to partner with global “heavyweights” in the research field. Historically, this has meant that many small states did not have universities until very recently—for example, not until 1992 in the case of Cyprus, and not until 2003 in that of Luxembourg (Crossley et al., 2011; Baldacchino, 2011). On the other hand, if they had established local universities, these often did not offer post-graduate courses, as in the case of the University of Iceland, until the turn of the last century. In many cases, this resulted in a brain drain, as the best and brightest students left the country to get a better education, and many never returned. This stands in contrast to the current philosophical and epistemological thinking underlying the rationale of higher education, whereby no compelling reason exists to prevent even the smallest state from having a full-fledged national university, since investing in higher education is increasingly viewed as a prerogative for increased productivity and competitiveness (Urbanovič & Wilkins, 2013). The imperatives of being competitive on a global scale, and at the same time being domestically relevant, in the case of political science generate specific tensions, if not resistance, and political science communities in small states are particularly susceptible to such tensions.

Political science as a separate academic discipline is a relatively new phenomenon; it was only after World War II that political science achieved this status. In this regard, it was a latecomer compared to other social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Earlier approaches to political science mostly concentrated on teaching civil servants to navigate between the two spheres of politics and administration (Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2010; Klingemann, 2008). Furthermore, political science in Central and Eastern Europe since World War II has followed a different trajectory, mainly focusing on Marxist-Leninist thought prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the decline of the corresponding communist regimes. Klingemann (2008) claims that the processes of democratization during the latter half of the twentieth century provided fertile ground for the development and inclusion of political science in higher education. The teaching of political science in universities is currently viewed as an instrument of civic education, designed to counteract political apathy and low election turnover (Sloam, 2008). Furthermore, Eisfeld (2019) suggests that in the twenty-first century, political science’s need to be useful to the citizens whose lives and civic engagement are affected by economic, cultural, and political constraints encourages the discipline to be partisan—that is, to suggest and discuss possible ways of attaining a society consistent with democratic rights and obligations, and the hope of a meaningful life (p. 193).

Originally, the institutionalization of political science in this context, understood as the launching of new, autonomous organizational entities (Klingemann, 2002), met a certain resistance from the old faculties. Klingemann (2008) argues that in Western Europe, resistance was more commonly found within older universities than in the newly established private or polytechnic universities. Furthermore, he points out that the same pattern may be observed in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. In his paper on political science in Europe, Klingemann (2008) states that of the seven smallest Council of Europe member states, only Iceland and Cyprus had established political science as a separate academic discipline. The institutionalization of political science, in this context, is observed from the point of view of “autonomy and identity,” with a focus on the main areas of teaching and research and on the leading theoretical approaches adopted (Klingemann, 2002). He also points out that Estonia and Slovenia had an established political science program, whereas information about Malta was not available. In the present work, to reiterate the definition employed in the aforesaid volume, the institutionalization of political science as an academic discipline is understood in broad terms: it refers to political science as a relatively stable discipline with an identity of its own, a fair amount of autonomy, capable of self-generation, willing to be internationalized, and accepted as a legitimate professional category (that of social scientists) by society at large. This raises the question of the relevance of studying political science’s institutionalization within small states.

In an increasingly globalized world, the internationalization of higher education is a fundamental question of the strategies adopted in higher education policy-making. Altbach and Knight (2007) define internationalization as “the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and even individuals—to cope with the global academic environment” (p. 290). Internationalization may be achieved using a pragmatic or an ideological approach, depending on the preferences of individual institutions or systems (Crosling et al., 2008). There are five broad strategic categories of internationalization: “the recruitment of international students, student and staff mobility, international partnerships, including joint programmes of study, international collaboration for research, entrepreneurship or development and internationalization of the curriculum” (adapted from Maringe, 2010, by Urbanovič & Wilkins, 2013, p. 378). In regard to academic mobility, this may be broken down into a few different sub-categories, such as cross-border supply, as in at-a-distance education without the physical presence of students, or staff actually moving from one place to another; consumption abroad, where students move from one country to another to study; commercial presence, such as branch campuses or joint ventures; and finally, the presence of teaching staff on site as academic staff temporarily move to other countries to provide services abroad (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

Crossley et al. (2011) point out that cross-border higher education providers constitute an important mechanism in many small states. However, it has also been pointed out that small states’ public administration is especially weak in regard to evaluation, planning, and quality assurance (Sarapuu & Randma-Liiv, 2020). This poses specific challenges concerning quality assurance schemes in smaller states’ higher education systems (Crossley et al., 2011).

Urbanovič and Wilson (2013) argue that the focus of internationalization in higher education has made higher education institutions more homogeneous, which is one of the focal issues of the Bologna Declaration (Wächter, 2004). They further argue that higher education institutions in small states are more likely to mimic successful institutions in larger countries, thus providing legitimation for their courses of action. Small states actively pursuing an internationalization strategy include the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of which have achieved a 10% rate of inbound international students (Chankseliani & Wells, 2019; Urbanovič & Wilkins, 2013).

Furthermore, Klingemann (2008) argues that political science has been more easily institutionalized in northern Europe than in southern Europe. Although he does not explicitly state which countries are considered to comprise “northern Europe,” it may be argued that Iceland and Estonia belong to that area whereas Slovenia and Malta lie in the south. Based on this, we would expect to see the highest degree of institutionalization of political science in Iceland, followed by Estonia, a corresponding lower level of institutionalization in Slovenia, with Malta bringing up the rear. However, there is controversial evidence concerning the question of whether the legacy of the former communist regime aids or hinders the institutionalization of political science in the countries concerned (Eisfeld & Pal, 2010). Finally, although all the countries belong to the “small” states category, there is a considerable size difference between them. Size may substantially impact their individual capacity to institutionalize political science, mainly in relation to the concept of sovereignty size, as in an individual state’s capacity to implement and formulate higher education policies.

3 Key Aspects of the Institutionalization of Political Science in Small States: Stability and Internationalization

The Bologna Declaration has made a significant contribution to the institutionalization of political science. One of the main aims of the Bologna Process is to make European higher education more homogeneous and globally competitive (Wächter, 2004). Furthermore, it aims to remove barriers and create a common framework for European scholars, by encouraging mobility and cross-continental cooperation (Reinalda & Kulesza, 2006).

However, a clear definition of political science as a unified discipline within the European context is problematic. First, there are pressures created by the Bologna process (Klingemann, 2008). The core curriculum shared across Europe has brought forth issues relating to such conformity. Although Goldsmith and Goldsmith (2010) suggest this is not a problem at the undergraduate level, this may become a serious problem at the postgraduate level. Analyzing European tendencies, Capano and Verzichelli (2016) decried the rural quality of political science due to its small numbers and its nature as a soft science with no strict scientific methods or practical applications. This view is contested in the introductory chapter to this volume, and the argument is made that over the past couple of decades, the number of political science schools, students, and academic staff in Europe has increased considerably. Moreover, methodological skills and a practice-oriented focus have become more prominent, particularly in Central and Eastern European countries which have successfully caught up internationally within a relatively short space of time, thus leveling the process of institutionalization. However, in small states the choice of research topics and methods, driven by the idiosyncratic considerations of a limited number of aspirants, might contribute not so much to a strengthening of the discipline, or to innovation within the discipline, as to its further rural widening.

The second problem lies in the level of differentiation of the discipline, as many of its sub-fields, such as international relations and public administration, constitute separate disciplines (Klingemann, 2008). In small countries, a high level of fragmentation of the discipline may hinder the institutionalization of political science due to reduced economies of scale (see also Baldacchino, 2011; Crossley et al., 2011). The third problem identified by Klingemann (2008) concerns the question of “who is a political scientist?” The establishment and recognition of professional standards, mainstreaming career paths and promotion, as well as the guiding principles of the reproduction of political science communities in small states, are challenged by the attractiveness (or prestige) of teaching posts at national and foreign universities, the multiplicity of international projects for professional cooperation, and last but not least, the global mobility of political scientists.

Finally, the institutionalization of political science at the national university level also needs to deal with problems of collective representation and collective action, which in small states might be further aggravated, again, by limited financial and human resources. Previous research on small states has revealed a tendency for specialists in these states to be “jacks of all trades,” as they are required to contribute to a much larger and more varied range of subjects than their counterparts working in larger states (Randma-Liiv & Sarapuu, 2019). Contrary to the classical views held by Huntington (1965), Ilonszki argues, in the introductory Chap. 2 to the present volume, that more complexity within the discipline might lead to its destabilization and de-institutionalization. In small states, this is a highly plausible trend, since not only does growing complexity sustain informal ways of operating, but strong contenders may use their personal status and establish their own separate departments, research centers, and/or new programs, thus exacerbating the fragmentation of the discipline.

Here, some theoretical references and reflections about stability as an institutional property, and a property of political science in general, are appropriate. Firstly, the resource-dependency theorists claim that “organizational stability is achieved through the exercise of power, control, or the negotiation of interdependencies for purposes of achieving a predictable or stable inflow of vital resources and reducing environmental uncertainty” (Oliver, 1991, p. 149) Secondly, institutional stability depends on the complexity of the constraints defining the institution (North, 1989). Changes in the bargaining power of existing organizations necessarily lead to alterations in the institutional framework; for instance, a decline in the effectiveness or prestige of an organization would weaken its ability to contribute to the maintenance of the larger institutional structure (North, 1993). Thirdly, institutional anchors and constraints are either formal or informal. Formal constraints are understood to be those rules that regulate various issues and eventually “solve” problems. Informal constraints such as routines, actors, and attitudes are no less important. The relationship between formal and informal rules influences stability, and in the case of discrepancies between the two, the resulting tension negatively affects stability (North, 1993, p. 20).

The institutional capacity to adapt is essential for stability. Yet a question arises as to what the stability of institutions means—a lack of external changes or an internal institutional transformational capacity? In addressing this question, Hansson and Helgesson (2003) distinguish between two types of stability: the first, covered by the notion of constancy, refers to the actual absence of change; the other, covered by the notions of resilience and robustness, refers to the way in which a system copes with disturbances. These two concepts can neither be conflated nor defined in terms of the other, but when combined they cover all major uses of the term “stability”—not just in the social sciences, but also in the natural sciences and engineering.

Lawrence et al. (2001) take into account another aspect of stability and measure stability in terms of the length of time that an institution remains legitimate. However, they warn that if we concentrate only on the temporality of organizational units, we are in danger of missing more nuanced aspects of institutional stability. Institutional stability and the pace of change depend on complex mechanisms. The authors include among such mechanisms the influence, force, discipline, and domination used by social agents to sustain or hinder the institutionalization process. Each of the mechanisms produces a distinctive pattern of institutional maintenance, and their combination results in complex institutional practices. Lawrence et al. established two major modes of stabilization: episodic forms of power, which refer to relatively discrete, strategic acts of mobilization initiated by particular actors; and systemic forms of power, which emerge and manifest themselves through routine, ongoing practices. For the purposes of the present chapter, pertinent examples of systemic forms of power include quality assurance processes and professional promotion schemes embedded in routinized systems that do not require repeated activation. Instances of episodic power are important in launching certain organizational initiatives, decisions to maintain or abolish undertakings, etc.

In sum, in this chapter, we address the issue of stability as a quality of social institutions (and more specifically, of the academic discipline of political science) that helps to maintain and reproduce those institutions and that provides the opportunity for change, as well as for adaptation to the evolving national and international environment(s). Regarding internationalization, in this chapter, we define it rather narrowly and focus mostly on the international networking (performed domestically and through cross-border mobility) of political scientists in small European states. A thorough account of the policies and practices of national political science communities and its establishments, employed to cope with the global academic environment, is clearly beyond the scope of current research.

As pointed out in the previous section, internationalization is particularly important in the case of small states, as it has a quality dimension as well as a geographical one. Internationalization takes place both domestically and internationally: domestically, it involves creating an international curriculum and teaching in a language that is attractive to foreign students or staff; external internationalization, on the other hand, involves setting up joint programs or cooperating with external institutions. It is essential that both internal and external actions are of international quality (Urbanovič & Wilkins, 2013). Thus, research on the internationalization of higher education tends to include one or all of the following categories (Crossley et al., 2011; Urbanovič et al., 2016): (1) the recruitment of international students; (2) student and staff mobility; (3) international partnerships, including joint programs of study; (4) international collaboration for research; and (5) entrepreneurship or the development and internationalization of the curriculum (adapted from Maringe, 2010, by Urbanovič & Wilkins, 2013, p. 378).

4 Country Profiles

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, this volume focuses on post-communist countries as latecomer democracies and scrutinizes the patterns of the process and the context of the institutionalization of the political science discipline in Central and Eastern Europe during the first two decades of the twenty-first century. In relation to this debate, this chapter offers two small states, Iceland and Malta, as control cases, thus transcending the old–new democracy debate. Arguably, Estonia and Slovenia are successfully homogenizing and catching up internationally, in a relatively short space of time. Estonia and Slovenia implemented important reforms and specific education projects in the field of political science—a particularly sensitive discipline in the countries under regime change. In the post–Cold War era, this has been a specific aim of Western organizations and governments in order to foster democracy in their political systems and promote democratic administration and public policy-making within these states (Eisfeld, 2019, p. 85).

The choice of country cases for this chapter is far from arbitrary. The four countries selected—Estonia, Iceland, Malta, and Slovenia—are situated in different parts of Europe and have different cultural–historical roots; they represent both old and new democracies. The differences in their institutional organizations and historical backgrounds should help establish whether any relationship exists between sovereignty size and the development of political science in higher education, in Europe’s smaller states.

Currently, higher education in Estonia is structured along Western lines. Its most important academic institutions include the following: The University of Tartu, founded in 1632; Tallinn Technical University, founded in 1918 and rebranded as TalTech in 2018; and Tallinn University, founded in 1919. The University of Tartu is the only classical university in the country and is the largest and most prestigious university in Estonia. It is the only university with a separate department of political science. TalTech, on the other hand, is the only university with a department of public administration, while Tallinn University focuses on the interdisciplinary study of governance, law and society.

In Iceland, there are seven universities, of which three have more than 1000 students. The largest is the University of Iceland, which was established in 1911. It is the only Icelandic university with an established political science faculty. Political science was first taught as a part of the social science program in the early 1970s. A separate political science faculty was established in 2008. The Faculty of Political Science is part of the School of Social Sciences. Although of a small size compared with other university faculties, it is of average size within the context of the School of Social Sciences, which is the largest school at the university.

The University of Malta is one of the oldest small-state universities in existence. Unlike the other three countries examined here, there is no established department of political science in Malta. Political science subjects are taught within programs offered by four other departments and institutes: the Department of Public Policy, the Department of International Relations, the Institute for European Studies, and the Mediterranean Academy for Diplomatic Studies.

The oldest and most prestigious university in Slovenia is the University of Ljubljana, established in 1919. The institutional foundation of political science was part of a political decision made by the former socialist government in 1961. The school in question was renamed the Higher School of Sociology, Political Science and Journalism in 1968, and subsequently became a part of the University of Ljubljana in 1970. Following Slovenian independence in 1991, this school was transformed into the Faculty of Social Sciences, with a separate Department of Political Science. In addition to the Political Science Department, the University of Ljubljana also has a Faculty of Administration (originally established as a separate institution in 1956). There are several universities in Slovenia; however, only the University of Ljubljana teaches political science at all three academic levels (BA, MA and PhD). Table 6.1 provides a short overview of the respective situation of higher education and political science in the four countries concerned.

Table 6.1 Profile of universities teaching political science
Full size table

As is evident, Estonia has integrated political science into its higher education system most extensively, with political science being taught at three higher education institutions. It also has the highest number of political scientists identified for the Proseps project, totaling 50, followed by Slovenia with 40 and Malta and Iceland with 25 each. Slovenia and Estonia have much larger institutions and more students than either Iceland or Malta. All four countries have foreign students accounting for a sizable portion of their student body, ranging from 7% in Slovenia to 14% in Malta. The percentage of foreign students has risen rapidly in all four countries in the past few years. Information on the precise numbers of political scientists as a percentage of academic staff is scarce: in the case of Estonia, the available information indicates that there are 30 political scientists employed by the University of Tartu, whereas no information is available regarding the country’s other universities. The University of Iceland employs 14 political scientists, while the University of Ljubljana has 54. The case of Malta is an anomaly, as political science is not taught as an independent program, and academic staff with backgrounds in political science are scattered throughout Malta University.

5 Analysis

This chapter is divided into two sections: the first focuses on institutional stability, and the second concentrates on the internationalization of political science in four small states. Our sources of empirical information include PROSEPS country reports, produced by national experts on the basis of a jointly agreed-upon template, covering the last two decades; the PROSEPS survey, conducted in spring 2018, which collected individual data mostly focused on the experiences of political scientists in Estonia, Iceland, Slovenia, and Malta over the last three years; and also some secondary sources (national statistics, international rankings, etc.). We employ two sets of empirical indicators of stability, namely the constancy and resilience of institutional entities (chairs, departments, programs, political science journals, and associations), and solid trends in the enrolment of students (at BA and MA levels). Using these indicators, we identify factors that stabilize or destabilize political science as a university discipline in Estonia, Iceland, Malta and Slovenia.

5.1 Stability

While assessing the stability of political science in the four selected countries, we focus on the last two decades, namely the period from 2000 to 2019. However, we feel it necessary to start with some observations regarding the formative periods concerned. The formation of political science as a full-fledged university discipline in Estonia and Slovenia only came about in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet system and of the Republic of Yugoslavia (Eisfeld & Pal, 2010). Meanwhile, the established democratic regimes in Iceland and Malta have permitted and encouraged the more extensive and consolidated development of political science compared to the former communist countries. This notwithstanding, during the period under research (2000–2019), in all four cases national political scientists view political science as a science of democracy.

Malta. As of 2019, the University of Malta does not have a department or chair explicitly mentioning political science in its title. Instead, there are a number of professorship positions associated with the teaching of courses in political science-related subjects. Researchers working within the domains of public administration, European studies and international relations are to be found in four different departments. At the University of Malta, the first department with the term “policy” in its name was the Department of Public Policy, set up within the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy in 1978.

It was only after the end of the Cold War that the building of political science as an academic discipline picked up the pace. In 1990, the Mediterranean Academy for Diplomatic Studies was created, followed soon afterwards, in 1991, by the European Documentation and Research Centre (renamed the Institute for European Studies in 2012). In 2001, the Department of International Relations was set up; this department falls within the Faculty of Arts, whereas the Institute for European Studies and the Mediterranean Academy for Diplomatic Studies are independent entities. The first PhD was completed at the Institute for Public Administration and Management in 2009, while both the Department of Public Policy and the Institute for European Studies awarded PhDs for the first time in 2016.

In terms of social demand, political science has seen positive developments in Malta: over the last two decades, the number of students enrolled in BA and MA political science programs has been stable, with a slight upward trend in numbers. However, the degree of institutionalization of the discipline is still rather weak. A fully-fledged political science program of study (or even one simply labelled this way) is still lacking, and there are no political science faculties, departments, institutes or centers. Political scientists in Malta do not have their own national political science journal, nor has any political science association established in the country yet. It may sound paradoxical that a political science degree course does not exist in a country in which society is so deeply and pervasively penetrated by politics and one where election turnout is almost universal (Carammia & Pace, 2015).

Malta is one of the founding members of the European Higher Education Area. Joining the Bologna process was arguably not a huge challenge for Malta, at least in terms of institutional adaptation. The Maltese educational system largely reflects the English model on which the Bologna system is modeled (Gatt, 2013). As a result, Malta tends to score high or very high on most of the Bologna scoreboard indicators, with the sole exception of two quality assurance indicators, which is something the university is currently addressing.

Iceland. Social sciences were added to the academic programs at the University of Iceland in Reykjavík in the late 1960s. Soon after a BA degree in political science was launched, international cooperation was initiated, and the first empirical study of the Icelandic political system was produced. The first chair of political science was established in 1970, the second in 1974, and the third in 1988. These chairs were assigned to the Department of Social Sciences from 1970 to 1976, then the Faculty of Social Sciences from 1976 to 2008, and have been part of the Faculty of Political Science since 2008. Following the end of the Cold War, the late 1990s and early 2000s witnessed a substantial expansion of political science at the University of Iceland. The number of students and staff rose considerably, and the university introduced MA and PhD programs in political science.

In around 1990, the University of Iceland obtained the right to appoint its professors without the prior consent of the Ministry of Education (previously, the Ministry could appoint professors who were not the university’s choice for the post). At that time, the public funding of universities was specifically linked to the number of students enrolled. This meant that as the number of political science students (and programs) rose, funding for the discipline also increased.

A separate Faculty of Political Science—a subject first taught as part of the social science program—was established in 2008. The Faculty runs one BA program in political science and several MA programs: a Public Administration MPA program (since 1997), an MA in International Relations (since 2005), a post-graduate diploma in Small State Studies (since 2009), and since 2015, an MA in Media and Communication Studies as well as an MA in West Nordic Studies. Finally, it offers courses in Gender Studies at both MA and PhD levels. Only the University of Iceland offers full programs in political science. However, some political science-related courses are offered at two other universities (the University of Akureyri and the University of Bifröst), as they have professors on their staff with a political science background.

The first PhD in political science was awarded by the University of Iceland in 2001, and this PhD program still exists. Since 2001, 11 PhDs in political science and six PhDs in gender studies have been awarded under this program. Iceland’s own political science journal (the Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration) was launched in 2006 and is being published regularly since then. It has an international editorial board and a double-blind peer review system; articles are in English and Icelandic, and two issues are published a year.

The Icelandic Political Science Association was founded in 1995. It is a small association, but one that has a reputation for holding interesting events, such as discussions on domestic and international elections and topics relevant to a domestic audience. It is an active member of such political science associations as the international IPSA and the Nordic NoPSA, and it organizes biannual national conferences. The association admits not only established scholars but also students and boasts around 600 members, with active members accounting for around half of the total membership. The association often teams up with authors and supports meetings to discuss new publications within the field of political science. The association also presents an annual award for the best BA thesis and the best MA thesis in political science.

These developments in political science as a university discipline in Iceland are sustained by the stable popularity of political science studies, both among Icelanders and foreign students. Since the early 2000s, the number of students enrolled in political science–based BA programs has doubled (from fewer than 200 to more than 300), and the number of those enrolled in political science–based MA programs rose from a few dozen in the early 2000s to around 350 by 2018. However, it should be pointed out that in Iceland, during the years after the financial crisis of 2008, the number of students increased substantially across disciplines and programs: it had risen to almost 20,000 by 2013, although numbers have dropped by a few thousand in more recent years.

Iceland has adhered to the Bologna system; relatively small adjustments were needed in the Icelandic setting, and reforms based on the Bologna system seem to have strengthened political science rather than weakened it. Furthermore, as pointed out before, the recession of 2008 did not result in any large-scale reforms of political science, or the social sciences in general, in Iceland.

Estonia. In Estonia, which was formerly the smallest of the Soviet republics, political science started off life as a new discipline, practically from scratch, when Gorbachev’s Perestroika began, with interest in politics growing exponentially as a consequence of this political sea-change. In 1988, an Institute of International and Social Studies was set up at the Estonian Academy of Sciences; in 1989, the Department of Philosophy and Political Science was established at the University of Tartu; in 1990, the Estonian School of Diplomacy was set up to train foreign service personnel; and in 1991, a Chair of Social Theory was founded at the Tallinn Pedagogical Institute.

The truly formative period began in September 1992, when Professor Rein Taagepera (b. in Tartu in 1933; fled to the West after World War II) arrived from the University of California-Irvine to set up a new School of Social Sciences at the University of Tartu (Pettai, 2010). Since 1995, the University of Tartu has had a Department in Political Science running a fully fledged BA program in political science. At Tallinn University (known at the time as the Tallinn Pedagogical Institute), political science as an academic discipline developed more slowly and tended to focus on issues of public administration. The blossoming of political science during the 1990s and into the 2000s was followed by its gradual consolidation during the 2010s. In Tartu, three separate units dealing with political science—the Department of Political Science, the Department of Public Administration, and the European College—merged to form the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies in 2015, though steps in this direction had already been taken as early as 2008. Most of the scholars making up the public administration sub-field at Tartu moved to Tallinn Technical University in 2007 and 2008, where they now work in the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance. At Tallinn University in 2015, the previous Institute of Political Science and Governance merged with sociology and law to form a broad unit called the School of Governance, Law and Society.

In Estonia in 2019, four higher education institutions (all public) taught political science: the University of Tartu, Tallinn University (formerly the Tallinn Pedagogical University), Tallinn Technical University (since 2018, TalTech), and the Estonian School of Diplomacy. Political science departments at private universities in Estonia, albeit of a less well-established nature, have also existed. These include the Eurouniversity, which after more than 20 years of existence is set to lose its teaching rights in 2020, and Audentes, founded in the late 1990s, which in 2008 merged with Tallinn Technical University (Pettai, 2010). The first political science PhD program got underway at the University of Tartu in 2000, with three students enrolled. The program encompasses all sub-fields of political science: political theory, international relations and comparative politics. The program has been successful up until now: by early 2019, 18 researchers had been awarded their PhDs after successfully completing this program.

Politica (in English, Politics) is an academic journal specializing in political science, founded in 1999 at the University of Tartu. As of 2019, it will publish one issue a year, mostly in Estonian. Acta politica Estica (in English, Political Affairs in Estonia) is an annual collection of articles (mostly in Estonian) that has been published since 2004 by Tallinn University. The publication Studies of Transition States and Societies (STSS) was established in 2009 by Tallinn University, and two to three issues appear per year, in English, indexed in Scopus. Its prestige among Estonian political scientists is moderate since although it is open access, it has not been ranked particularly highly by the national political science assessment system. Despite being formally established in the early 1990s, Estonia’s political science association has never been active.

Notwithstanding these positive developments and the universities’ efforts to attract foreign students, the number of students enrolled in BA and MA programs in political science in Estonia has fallen over the past two decades. The same trend is observable across all study programs at Estonia’s universities, and it is mostly attributable to demographic and generational changes: the population is aging, cultural attitudes are changing, and young Estonians are increasingly going abroad, to the West, to study.

Furthermore, over the last decade, national political developments in Estonia have led to the further retrenchment of political science. In 2011, a center-right political party (Pro Patria) revised the fee system for Estonian-language education, and universities were deprived of the opportunity to earn additional income through student fees. Such circumstances forced universities to downsize. At the same time, certain subjects (including political science) became increasingly international through the establishment of English-language study programs.

Slovenia. Of the former Yugoslavian states, Slovenia had the most flexible communist regime for extended periods, and Slovenian social sciences remained more open to Western ideas than elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia (Eisfeld, 2012, p. 93). What was originally a political project of the ruling Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the late 1960s, the School of Political Science in Ljubljana was subsequently transformed into the School of Sociology, Political Science and Journalism, and was given greater freedom in regard to its teaching and research. In 1970, it was renamed the Faculty of Sociology, Political Science and Journalism, and became part of the University of Ljubljana. The University of Ljubljana is the only Slovenian higher education institution with a political science department. While there are other institutions that offer political science courses (for instance, the School of Advanced Social Studies in Nova Gorica), or even run MA programs in political science (the University of Primorska), they do not have their own political science departments, and they recruit lecturers from other departments and universities to teach their courses.

The University of Ljubljana established its PhD program in political science in 1965. In 2008, the University of Ljubljana established an interdisciplinary program in the humanities and social sciences, whereby students were able to choose their field of specialization (political science or its sub-disciplines, such as policy analysis, European studies or international relations). Since 1964, Slovenian political scientists have had their own journal (Teorija in praksa; in English, Theory and Praxis), although it also covers other disciplines such as sociology and economics. The journal has always been highly reputed in socialist countries and among left-leaning Western academics. Currently, in 2019, the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana publishes six issues annually, predominantly in English; the journal is indexed in Scopus.

The Slovenian Political Science Association was established in 1968 and remains active to this day. It currently boasts around 200 members, and regularly holds national conferences. It is an active member of political science associations such as the international IPSA and the regional CEPSA (Central European Political Science Association).

The Slovenian higher education system has undergone several reforms over the years. Most recently, the Bologna Process and the global economic crisis of 2008 triggered the most significant changes. The Bologna Process has been fully implemented since 2005 and has led to the revision of the organizational and teaching paradigms of Slovenian universities’ political science programs. During the second wave of reforms (prompted by the economic crisis of 2008 that led to reduced state spending on the nation’s public universities), the changes made were more substantial; since 2018 a new 3 + 2 + 3 formula has been applied, establishing programs of three years for undergraduates, two years for postgraduates (Master’s degree students) and three years for PhD scholars. The changes in the formula have not only led to fewer political science courses (cuts being mostly justified on the grounds of financial savings) but have also had a negative impact on student enrolment in undergraduate and graduate programs, especially in the field of political theory and policy analysis (public administration).

The Great Recession following the global financial crisis in 2008 resulted in very different scenarios for the two countries most severely hit, namely Iceland and Slovenia. Malta experienced no real crisis, just a slowdown for a few years, and there was no noticeable impact on university life. In Estonia, austerity policies were introduced; however, they had no dramatic impact on higher education, as the country enjoyed a substantial budget surplus that went towards cushioning the immediate effects of the financial crisis. In the case of Slovenia, reforms driven by the need for substantial financial savings were implemented. This resulted in fewer courses being offered, and some subjects, such as political leadership, comparative public administration and federalism studies, were removed from the curricula altogether. In contrast, the Icelandic case saw a large influx of students into the country’s universities, as unemployed people were encouraged to use their spare time to achieve higher levels of education. Thus, the number of students increased exponentially, but without any corresponding growth in the number of teaching staff. The teacher-student ratio consequently rose considerably during this period. However, the crisis did not result in any cuts in the courses in political science on offer, and the number of students has decreased in recent years. It may be argued that in the case of Iceland, the crisis strengthened the position of political science within higher education, while in the case of Slovenia it weakened it; while no clear and immediate effects can be observed in the cases of Malta and Estonia.

As institutional stability also equates to the ability of institutions to react to a changing environment, the four cases demonstrate divergent levels of adaptability. In Estonia, political reforms (widely embraced neo-liberal targets and recent surges in populism), and in Slovenia, profound changes in the national higher education system (implementation of the Bologna system and budget cuts following the 2008 economic crisis), have had negative effects on the development of political science. Student enrolment in political science degree courses in Estonia and Slovenia has declined since 2010, compared to Malta and Iceland where it has remained relatively stable. Indeed, in Iceland political science has blossomed, particularly as a consequence of the 2008 crisis, although developments since 2019 have been rather less positive.

5.2 Internationalization

We assess the level of internationalization in both inward/inbound and outward/outbound terms. In regard to the former, we shall focus on the recruitment of international students and staff, while in regard to the latter, our focus will be on international networking (international publications, cross-border mobility, and research projects) with foreign partners. We identify factors that increase or decrease the internationalization of political science in Estonia, Iceland, Malta and Slovenia. (For a broad picture about internationalization, refer to Chap. 8 in this volume.)

While assessing the internationalization of political science in the four selected countries, we focus on current trends and situations as observed in 2018, since these are reflected in expert reports and evaluations as well as the PROSEPS survey conducted in 2018. The challenges of adopting the Bologna system, however, shall be dealt with in the section on stability. The Bologna-system issues are clearly genuinely connected to the question of internationalization, where the Bologna system has played, and continues to play, a major role, as shown by the need to introduce programs in English aimed at international students, and the increased emphasis on professional cooperation with academic partners from abroad, for example.

With regard to the internationalization of political science in the four countries in question, a few country-specific factors should first be outlined. In Malta, the majority of political scientists obtained their PhDs from foreign universities (mostly located in the UK), and English has long been the official language at the University of Malta, not only for teaching but also for administrative meetings at all levels. In Iceland, there is no state policy aimed at increasing the percentage of international students at the university level. However, there are incentives, for example, built into the national research grant schemes that engender international cooperation through the recruitment of inbound PhD candidates, faculty mobility, etc. In the autumn of 2019, the Programme of International Relations within the Department of Political Science switched wholesale to the English language. PhD dissertations in political science in Iceland are presented in Icelandic or English, depending on the nationality of the external examiners and/or supervisors. In Estonia, the synergy of incoming foreign scholars and internationally oriented researchers at the University of Tartu had led to a complete transition to English-language teaching at both PhD and MA levels in political science, by the year 2015. Staff in the Department of Political Science in Tartu had become very international, with more than 12 different nationalities present. In Estonia, PhD dissertations in political science are written and presented in English. In Slovenia, according to the national legislation, all programs taught at the public universities must be taught in the Slovenian language; only then can they also be offered in parallel English classes. Such English-language ventures include MA programs in political theory, policy analysis and public administration. In addition, there are some joint interdisciplinary MA degree programs (developed and delivered with partner universities from abroad) that are offered in English, such as Comparative Local Development and Human Rights and Democratization. At the PhD level, almost all lectures are given in English, as foreign professors contribute significantly to the curriculum. PhDs in political science in Slovenia can be presented and in either Slovenian or English. As Table 6.2 shows, a sizable proportion of students are foreign; however, there is little information about the share of foreign students in relation to individual subjects. It can be said, however, that all four states are pursuing a process of internationalization by increasing foreign student numbers. Information regarding the proportion of foreign members of staff at individual universities is most robust in relation to Estonia, which seems to be strategically increasing foreign academic staff numbers Information regarding this matter was not available in the case of the other three states.

Table 6.2 International networking of political scientists from Estonia, Iceland, Malta and Slovenia
Full size table

In terms of international networking, the PROSEPS 2018 survey findings provide a snapshot of the patterns of the internationalization of political scientists in the four countries in question (see Table 6.2). Clearly, the small numbers of respondents in Estonia, Iceland, Slovenia, and Malta does not permit any broader generalizations to be made. However, the results of the survey, combined with the country experts’ insights, are instructive.

Political science researchers from the four states actively publish abroad, and they mainly use English for the purposes of professional communication. Each year, every second researcher from Estonia, Iceland, Malta, and Slovenia publishes at least one article in a journal outside his/her own country and/or a chapter in a book published by an international publishing house. Slovenian and Estonian political scientists tend to publish with international co-authors, while Icelandic and Maltese researchers are less internationalized in terms of co-authored academic publications. English is the lingua franca of political scientists in Estonia, Iceland, Malta, and Slovenia. In Iceland and Slovenia, every third political scientist also publishes their research in a different foreign language (most often in German). Only a small percentage of political scientists in Malta and Estonia publish in a “third” language (respectively, in Italian and Russian).

The responding researchers from the four small countries in question are internationally mobile. The more active of them participate in international conferences, either presenting papers or acting as discussants. They are also strongly engaged in international research projects. On this account, Malta lags behind the other three, as only every fourth political scientist participated in joint projects between 2015 and 2018, compared with two-thirds of Estonian researchers engaged in similar endeavors.

International mobility with a prolonged physical presence abroad scores lower. However, every second Maltese and Slovenian political scientist has recently spent more than two weeks working abroad. Estonian and Icelandic researchers are less inclined to engage in cross-border mobility involving longer stays abroad. The remoteness of Iceland and its “islandness” (isolation factor) contribute to this. Only a few researchers from Iceland report being active, and having prominent positions, in joint international academic projects. By comparison, practically every second political scientist from Slovenia has engaged in at least one highly prestigious international activity, such as being: a partner or subcontractor in a research project funded by an international institution such as H2020, ERC or COST; a reviewer of project applications funded by international or another country’s institutions; or an editor of an international peer-reviewed journal. Estonian and Maltese colleagues are moderately entrepreneurial and successful in such international ventures.

Every third researcher from Iceland, and every second one from Malta, has declared that he/she did not spend any time working abroad—meaning doing research or teaching—between 2015 and 2018. The proportion of exclusively “sedentary” political scientists in Estonia and Slovenia is less than one-fifth. When asked “Have you ever worked in any contracted research or teaching position in another country?”, the responses of political scientists from two post-communist democracies noticeably differed from those of their colleagues in Malta and Iceland (both older Western democracies). In Estonia and Slovenia, only one in four political scientists acknowledged an opportunity for a lengthy professional stay abroad over the course of their entire career, compared to one in two political scientists in Iceland and Malta. Interestingly, German universities are listed as host institutions by the respondents from all four countries. The United Kingdom is also a popular choice for periods of foreign working, especially among Maltese academics. Russia, a former center of political-ideological interest, is visited by Estonian and Slovenian political scientists. Staying in neighboring countries forms another pattern: Estonians go to Finland, Icelanders to other Nordic countries, Maltese academics go to Italy, and Slovenians to Austria. However, the limited number of respondents prevents us from making broader generalizations. The United States and China are apparently the two most attractive non-European host countries, systematically attracting political scientists from all four of these small European states.

Domestic cultural and political contexts are also reflected in the different patterns of international mobility displayed by political scientists from small countries. On the one hand, the Slovenian political science community is very strongly integrated internationally (Eisfeld, 2012, p. 93), while in the Slovenian system academics need to go abroad if they want to further their careers. On the other hand, Iceland is a remote island, its political science community is famed for promoting strong domestic concerns, and there are no university-level rules of international mobility for individual career advancement. Meanwhile, Estonian and Maltese political science researchers do not enjoy the benefits of strong collective professional associations and institutional practices consolidated “under one roof”; their international mobility and networking decisions are mostly taken individually and are less contingent on national traditions. As mentioned (see Table 6.1), in Estonia at least three universities teach and carry out research in political science; in Malta, different components of the political science program are scattered across numerous university departments.

6 Discussion and Conclusion

An analysis of the developments of political science departments, schools and faculties in the four countries shows clear signs of path dependency, as observed by North (1991). With variable trajectories, the founding chairs of political science programs in Iceland, Estonia and Slovenia reveal temporal institutional stability; they adapt and continue their activities. In Malta, where there was no institutional unit labelled “political science” during the inception phase, none of the organizational units had acquired that label by early 2020.

As to the trends anticipated in the introductory chapter regarding the proliferation of private institutions, which could undermine the stability of political science, such developments have been observed in Estonia, which for a brief period experimented with private institutions. However, by early 2020 private ventures in the field of political science in Estonia had either vanished or had been incorporated into well-consolidated public universities. None of the other small states has ever engaged in the privatization of political science programs. Slovenia has refrained from doing so probably due to the limited entity of its national market and the geographical and cultural proximity of Croatia and Serbia, where such private ventures were, and still are, abundant (see the chapter on the post-Yugoslav/Balkan cases in this volume). Iceland and Malta have not “gone private” in the field of political science due to their lengthy, continuous development of the discipline, and of public university education in general.

Instances of more energetic “catching-up” with international projects are noticeable among post-communist Estonian and Slovenian political scientists, who are very open to international academic initiatives, and who actively pursue joint projects. Meanwhile, the data show that scientists from Malta and Iceland, working over a more extensive period (as their political science programs were initially developed that much longer ago), internationalize in a less frenetic manner and are more concerned with individual original work and bringing single-authored insights to the table.

As to the effects of previous political legacies, post-communist political scientists as a whole have less professional experience working abroad than their peers from the older democracies. The historical factor also means that the former “colonial masters” of such small states significantly impact the internationalization of those states’ current political scientists. However, the figures as such need to be complemented by more detailed, in-depth research into the “colonial” effects on small states’ political science communities and their agendas.

As regards the modes of stabilization distinguished by Lawrence et al. (2001), empirical data reveal that in Iceland and Estonia, institutional stabilization is mostly pursued through normative strategy: that is, through the professionalization and standardization of political science teaching and research using performance-based assessment methods. Elements of mimetic stabilization can be found in Slovenia, especially in relation to the implementation of the Bologna system. The Slovenian and Icelandic political science associations have adopted good practices in terms of normative strategy, which contribute to the social prestige and legitimacy of the discipline, and in different ways express a clear professional ethos both domestically and internationally. In Malta, normative, albeit shallow, stabilization trends are apparent, though the situation is rather stagnant, with no consolidated university departments or political science associations having emerged. In Estonia, the preservation of ailing national political science journals published in Estonian reveals coercive stabilization based on the political considerations of national decision-makers, that perpetuate various institutional arrangements whose meaningfulness has been questioned by professional political scientists. The issue raised in the introductory chapter to this volume, concerning the length of time that institutions within the same field, each characterized by a diverse type of stabilization logic, could co-exist, remains unanswered.

Lawrence et al.’s (2001) differentiation between episodic and systemic forms of power exercised in the process of institutionalization, is embraced in our study of these four small states. On the one hand, in Estonia we observe numerous strategic acts of mobilization: for instance, the launching of a western-style political science curriculum by the outstanding political scientist Rein Taagepera, or the highly personalized decision to maintain (or abolish) specific private establishments operating in the domain of political science. On the other hand, in Slovenia, we witness several systemic, ongoing practices adopted by organizations, such as internationalization or professional promotion schemes, embedded in routinized systems that do not require repeated activation. The ailing quality assurance system witnessed in Malta in relation to the Bologna Process is yet another example of a systemic form of power. In the case of Iceland, new programs tend to be launched episodically, mostly driven by highly motivated individuals.

The “tests” of Iceland and Malta compellingly demonstrate that “older” cases do not necessarily mean the more successful development—in terms of institutional performance and presence—of national political science programs and communities. Political science in latecomer Estonia, which has developed more in the breakthrough than the incremental mode, internationally ranks noticeably higher than it does in Malta and is relatively better acknowledged than in Iceland. As the introduction points out, “in some ways the process of institutionalization appears to be a two-step process. First, there must be some conscious decision to create an organization or institution for a specific purpose. The second stage appears to be then to fashion the institution over time” (Peters & Pierre, 1999, pp. 32–33). The evidence from these four countries suggests that in the domain of political science, the more promising projects are those launched from the top (as in Estonia), or those which, after a brief phase of modest initiatives, gain impetus (as in Iceland or Slovenia), rather than those based on slow, incremental undertakings over a longer period of time, as in Malta. The examples of Malta and, to a certain extent, of Slovenia reveal that a strategy involving numerous stakeholders could be efficiently employed during the second stage when political science as an academic discipline is fashioned over time. Indeed, as anticipated in the introduction, the process of adaptation is more important to understanding the process of institutionalization than the outcome itself.

With regard to the threat of de-institutionalization, political science in all four countries experiences such a threat mostly in relation to student enrolment (demographic decline plus competition from other, more fashionable disciplines such as communication studies, economics or life-sciences. New societal and economic demands, such as economic pressures to increase the efficiency and social impact of research, are substantial in Estonia and Slovenia, but less so in Malta and Iceland. Political (partisan) pressures on political science communities are not reported as being so significant in any of the four small, consolidated European democracies.

Taken together, the four cases reveal different levels of institutionalization of political science, which in both Iceland and Estonia is highly stable, as a result of a combination of healthy resilience and a good capacity to adapt and innovate. The level of institutionalization in Slovenia is slightly lower; its resilience is weakened by negative external factors (especially the economic downturn), and as the relatively unsuccessful implementation of the Bologna system demonstrates, its capacity to adapt is weak. Malta exhibits the lowest level of institutionalization of political science of the four countries concerned, and in keeping with Hansson and Helgesson (2003), the trends and patterns of empirically observed stability in Maltese political science should be seen as illustrating constancy and stickiness rather than resilience and robustness.

These observations are in line with Klingemann’s (2008) belief that political sciences have attained a higher level of institutionalization in northern Europe than in southern Europe. This conclusion is supported by several “control” variables identified in this chapter. Iceland and Malta are islands, and also are very small states in terms of population; both boast firmly established democracies, and during the Cold War neither belonged to the communist sphere. Moreover, both share similar histories of “colonialization” dating back to before the modern nation-state era, with their national independence only having been achieved after World War II. Meanwhile, Estonia and Slovenia are substantially larger “small states”, in terms of population, with relatively new democratic systems and sharing a similar history of occupation, by ideologically driven Russian (Soviet) imperialism in the case of Estonia, and homemade versions thereof in the case of Slovenia. The crosscutting north-south scale parsimoniously reveals the distinct levels of the institutionalization of political science in small European states. However, recently observed negative developments of political science in Estonia, mostly the result of negative demographic trends and of populist political decisions, somewhat contradict the idea of the “happily anchored North” and demonstrate that institutionalization is a never-ending process. The north-south axis is also pertinent in understanding the rather less institutionalized internationalization of political scientists in Malta and Slovenia (south) compared to their colleagues in Iceland and Estonia (north), where the internationalization of political scientists is more frequently channeled via distance cooperation, with a stronger emphasis on institutionalized partnerships and cooperative projects, and less reliance on interpersonal and informal actions.

The Slovenian case confirms that the legacy of the previous nondemocratic regime might work not only as a hindrance to but also as a positive catalyst for the institutionalization of political science (Eisfeld & Pal, 2010). The political science institutions inherited and successfully maintained from socialist times (university departments, specialized journals and traditions, and organizational frameworks of collective action within the political science community) in twenty-first century Slovenia have been helpful overall. Post-communist Estonia, starting from scratch having discarded practically all of the political science-related structures established in Soviet times, has fared even better than Slovenia in terms of the institutionalization of political science. The empirical evidence clearly sustains the belief that the former communist states’ undemocratic past has not necessarily led to the post-communist reincarnation of those countries along identical paths of democratization and institutionalization. However, in the political science communities of both of the former communist-led countries examined here, almost thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, strong feelings continue to be expressed regarding the “time lost under communism,” the “compressed time” perspective and the urge to “catch up” with the West, as witnessed in the patterns of hyper-active internationalization. The “heavy-duty” outward internationalization witnessed in Estonia and Slovenia differs from the more relaxed, better-pondered outward internationalization seen in Malta and Iceland.

The four small states differ considerably in terms of sovereignty size. Malta, an EU member, is a very small polity, and it has little incentive (small capacity) to assert and develop its own fully fledged and institutionalized tradition of political science, and no genuine nation-state interest in doing so, even though politics penetrate its society to the extent where its election turnout is almost universal. Iceland, dwelling since World War II on its clear identity as a civic nation, and playing an important role not only regionally but also globally, displays a much greater interest and a stronger capacity to develop and consolidate political science within the country. Estonia is not only four times larger than Iceland or Malta, in terms of population, but also more vigilant in regard to its sovereignty, due to the inherent conflict between its democratic ideals and its relationship with Russia. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the development of political science in Estonia is, for better or worse, regarded as an issue of national interest. Finally, Slovenia, with a population of around two million, located in a relatively secure geopolitical environment as a member of both the EU and NATO and with no aggressive immediate neighbors, is less affected by sovereignty size in terms of the development of political science within the country.

Overall, the findings show that small states can develop stable, internationally well-entrenched political science institutions at the university level. Sovereignty size is not the only decisive factor; path-dependent institutional practices also help account for the development of political science in small states. We would argue that the smallness of the state provides mixed blessings for the development and institutionalization of political science. However, our analysis of four cases demonstrates that smallness is an advantage rather than a burden, more a source of resilience and robustness than of constancy and rigidity, and a catalyst for openness and ingenuity rather than for retrenchment and umbrage.