|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This course is open to all students, including international and Erasmus students, whether you are currently in Prague or studying from abroad. The course will be conducted fully online in an interactive format designed to make up for the lack of in-person meetings. No prior knowledge of social policy or family policy is required. The course welcomes anyone who is curious to learn more about these areas, which affect all of us at different points in our life cycle. A major advantage of this course is its interactive structure. Students will engage in a variety of debates and discussions, including a class debate on whether fathers should be required by the state to participate in childcare. Beyond debates, we will explore the implications of policy design—such as how changes in family policy can influence poverty and inequality. This course examines the role of radical political parties—both left- and right-wing—in shaping social policy across different political systems. It explores the ideological foundations, historical trajectories, and policy implications of radicalism, addressing key questions such as: What drives the rise of radical parties? How do they challenge or transform welfare states? To what extent do they strengthen or undermine democratic governance? Through comparative analysis and case studies, students will critically assess the intersections of radical politics with social policy issues such as welfare provision, migration, gender rights, and economic redistribution. The course will also interrogate the role of crises, populism, and political communication in the mainstreaming of radical movements. By the end of the course, students will have developed a nuanced understanding of how radical parties influence contemporary policy debates and democratic institutions.
SUMMER SEMESTER 2025-26 COURSE OVERVIEW Learning Outcomes By the end of this course, students should be able to:
Assessment summary
Feedback Staff feedback Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course: · Verbal feedback of a formative nature during lectures; · Written feedback of a formative nature based on individual assignments; and · Written feedback of a summative nature based on final (collective) assignment. Student Feedback · Continuous and final feedback will be provided in both verbal and written way. Students are free to provide feedback on all aspects of the course: literature, content, organisation as well as study load.
COURSE SCHEDULE
ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
Assessment I – Reading assignment
Evaluation will be based on the depth and quality of responses. Full (five) points are awarded for thoughtful and well-developed answers that demonstrate critical thinking and integrate personal insights beyond the text. Slightly lower scores will be given if responses, while accurate, lack depth or originality. Partial credit will be awarded for answers that are incomplete or show limited engagement, while minimal points will be given for superficial or unclear responses. The goal is to encourage meaningful reflection rather than strict memorization, ensuring a constructive and motivating learning experience. Grading breakdown:
Assignment II – Class debate
The debate is designed to enhance argumentative skills—an essential tool for navigating the world of social policymaking. Students may obtain up to 15 points. Debate format:
Rules & expectations:
These debates simulate the battle of ideas in social policy and provide a platform for sharpening persuasive communication, critical thinking and teamwork. Grading breakdown for debate participants (Supporters vs Opposition) – 15 Points 13–15 Points (Outstanding performance) 10–12 Points (Strong performance) 7–9 Points (Satisfactory performance) 4–6 Points (Needs improvement) 1–3 Points (Minimal effort) 0 Points (No participation) Assignment III – Presentation Three critical issues: public support, gender (and sexuality), and environmental politics. Students will work in teams to create a 20-minute presentation (+ 10-minute Q&A) analyzing one of the three topics above. The presentation should:
Submission & presentation dates: 9.3.2026, 20.4.2026, 4.5.2026 The presentation will be graded according to the following criteria:
Total: 15 Points
Essay
For the written component of this course, students are required to submit an analytical essay of approximately 8–10 pages (excluding references) on a topic that explores the relationship between radical politics and the welfare state. The essay should demonstrate the ability to analyze social policy as a politically contested field in which radical political projects—on both the left and the right—are articulated, implemented, and transformed. Rather than treating the welfare state as a neutral set of institutions, students are expected to conceptualize it as an active instrument of political struggle. Radical politics frequently becomes visible not through constitutional change or overt regime transformation, but through reforms to public support systems, family policy, environmental governance, and administrative practices that redefine belonging, responsibility, and social order. The essay should therefore combine theoretical reflection with concrete policy analysis. One possible thematic focus is public support, redistribution, and deservingness. Essays in this area may investigate how radical political actors seek to reshape welfare provision in line with particular moral and ideological visions of “the people.” Concrete examples that students might explore include: · Universal Basic Income proposals advanced by radical left parties or movements, and debates over whether UBI represents decommodification or a depoliticized cash transfer. · Welfare chauvinism in radical right parties, focusing on how access to social benefits is restricted through citizenship, contribution, or cultural criteria. · The expansion of welfare conditionality and sanctions framed as “common sense” or anti-elite governance in populist politics. A second broad area concerns gender, sexuality, and family policy as welfare state projects. Radical politics often engages deeply with questions of reproduction, care, and moral order, using social policy to stabilize or transform social norms. Students could consider, for example: · Pro-natalist family policies in countries such as Hungary or Poland, analyzing how child benefits and tax incentives are tied to nationalist or conservative visions of the family. · Conflicts over LGBTQ+ inclusion in welfare institutions, such as access to family benefits, adoption rights, or sex education, and how these are mobilized in radical political campaigns. · Radical feminist or queer critiques of family-based welfare models, focusing on proposals to de-familialize care through universal public services. A third promising theme is environmental politics and the welfare state. Climate change and ecological crisis have opened new spaces for radical politics within social policy, often revealing tensions between social protection, economic growth, and environmental limits. Essays might examine: · Green New Deal proposals as attempts to combine climate action with welfare expansion, and the extent to which they challenge or reinforce existing welfare regimes. · Energy subsidies or price controls introduced in response to environmental or energy crises, and their populist framing as protection of “ordinary people.” · Degrowth-oriented welfare proposals that seek to redefine social protection beyond productivity and growth. Students may also focus on administration, bureaucracy, and governance as sites where radical politics is translated into everyday welfare practices. This perspective allows for analysis beyond formal policy declarations, concentrating instead on how welfare states govern populations. Possible cases include: · Digitalization and algorithmic decision-making in welfare administration, framed as efficiency but producing new forms of exclusion. · Anti-bureaucratic rhetoric combined with increasingly punitive welfare enforcement under populist governments. · Street-level welfare governance and the discretionary power of caseworkers in politically polarized contexts. Across all these thematic areas, students are encouraged to think carefully about how their essay is conceptualized. A single-case study allows for in-depth analysis of one country and one policy field, such as family policy reform under a radical right government or environmental welfare initiatives under a left-wing coalition. A comparative approach may contrast radical left and radical right welfare projects, compare similar policies across different national contexts, or examine how different welfare regimes respond to similar political pressures. A historical analysis can trace how earlier radical interventions in the welfare state continue to shape present debates, while a small-scale empirical investigation—such as interviews, policy document analysis, or systematic collection of media or social media material—can add original insight, provided the methodology is transparent and analytically grounded. Regardless of topic or approach, essays must engage explicitly with academic literature on radical politics, populism, and social policy. The aim is not advocacy, but critical analysis: students should reflect on the transformative ambitions, contradictions, and limits of radical welfare projects, as well as on the social consequences they produce. Finally, all essays must comply fully with the referencing and citation style of the Faculty of Social Sciences. Accurate and consistent referencing of academic sources, policy documents, and empirical materials is a core requirement and will be taken into account in the assessment. The essay counts for up to 60 points and represents a central component of the course evaluation. Regardless of the chosen topic, students must adhere to academic integrity standards. The use of ChatGPT or other AI-generated content as a direct substitute for original research and analysis is strictly prohibited. Submitting AI-generated text without critical engagement or revision, presenting arguments that lack original thought, or failing to properly cite sources will result in an automatic failure of the assignment. Over-reliance on AI-generated summaries instead of engaging with peer-reviewed literature is also unacceptable. However, students may use AI tools in an ethical manner to assist with brainstorming, organizing ideas, or improving clarity, provided that the intellectual work, argumentation, and critical analysis remain their own. If in doubt, students are encouraged to consult the lecturer regarding appropriate use of such tools. ISATEC grading scheme
weekly course topics Class 1: Introduction This introductory session sets the scene for the course by examining how radical political parties engage with and seek to reshape the welfare state. It introduces the main differences between radical left and radical right politics, with particular attention to how each understands solidarity, inequality, authority, and social obligation. The discussion moves beyond viewing the welfare state as a neutral system of redistribution and instead treats it as a political institution that actively defines who belongs and on what terms. Historical moments of welfare expansion, crisis, and restructuring are used to show why radical politics repeatedly turns to social policy as a key site of struggle. The session also considers why debates over welfare are often more consequential than abstract ideological disputes. Students are invited to think about how radical ideas translate into concrete policy designs and administrative practices. The goal is to establish a common analytical language for the weeks that follow. Finally, we will outline the course structure and evaluation criteria, including the format of assigments. This introduction will set the stage for a semester of active engagement, critical thinking, and real-world policy analysis.
Class 2: Conceptualizing radicalism and political extremism This session focuses on how radicalism and political extremism are defined, contested, and used within political and policy debates. It examines the analytical boundaries between radical, populist, and extremist politics, and why these distinctions matter for understanding welfare state politics. Rather than treating radicalism as a deviation from democratic norms, the discussion situates it within broader traditions of political conflict and social change. The class explores how labels such as “extreme” or “illiberal” are mobilized to delegitimize certain policy agendas while normalizing others. Attention is also given to the normative assumptions embedded in academic and policy-driven definitions of extremism. By the end of the session, students will be better equipped to assess when radicalism represents democratic contestation and when it signals exclusionary or authoritarian projects. The session provides conceptual tools that will underpin the analysis of concrete policy cases later in the course.
Class 3: Historical evolution of radical political parties This session traces the historical development of radical left and radical right political parties in Europe, with particular attention to their changing relationships with the welfare state. It explores how different waves of radical politics emerged in response to industrialization, welfare expansion, economic crisis, and political realignment. The discussion highlights how radical left parties have alternated between reformist engagement with welfare institutions and more transformative ambitions, while radical right parties have gradually moved from marginal protest to governing actors. Attention is paid to how historical legacies, party systems, and welfare regimes have shaped these trajectories in different national contexts. The session also considers how memories of authoritarianism, socialism, and neoliberal reform continue to structure contemporary radical politics. By situating current actors in a longer historical perspective, the class shows why radical politics in Europe cannot be understood as a sudden or uniform phenomenon. The aim is to ground later policy-focused discussions in an appreciation of historical continuity and change.
Class 4: Support for radical parties This session examines who supports radical left and radical right parties and why these parties resonate with certain segments of the electorate. It explores how economic insecurity, social status anxiety, and perceptions of political exclusion shape positive attitudes toward radical alternatives. The discussion moves beyond simple protest explanations to consider how welfare experiences, labor market positions, and territorial inequalities influence political alignment. Attention is given to differences and overlaps in the social bases of radical left and radical right support. The session also addresses how emotions such as resentment, hope, and moral outrage are mobilized in relation to social policy debates. By linking attitudes to lived experiences of welfare and insecurity, the class develops a nuanced understanding of radical party support. The aim is to connect voter behavior to broader transformations of welfare states and political representation.
Class 5: Radical right parties and social policy This session offers a closer examination of how radical right parties engage with social policy and the welfare state. It asks which types of welfare policies these parties tend to support, reshape, or oppose, and how such positions are justified politically. The discussion explores the centrality of welfare chauvinism, contributory logics, and moralized notions of deservingness in radical right programs. Attention is given to whether the welfare state functions as a core ideological commitment or as a strategic tool in electoral competition. The session also considers how social policy is used to draw symbolic boundaries between insiders and outsiders. By analyzing programmatic choices and political rhetoric together, the class shows how welfare policy becomes a key resource in radical right contestation. The aim is to understand the welfare state not as peripheral, but as politically instrumental for radical right parties.
Class 6: Radical left parties and social policy This session turns to radical left parties in Europe and their engagement with social policy and the welfare state. It examines which welfare policies these parties seek to defend, expand, or transform, and how such positions are grounded in broader critiques of capitalism and inequality. The discussion considers the tension between reformist strategies within existing welfare institutions and more transformative ambitions that challenge commodification and market dependence. Attention is given to how radical left parties frame universalism, public provision, and social rights in electoral competition. The session also explores the constraints these parties face when moving from opposition to government. By linking ideological commitments to concrete policy agendas, the class highlights the welfare state as a central arena for radical left politics rather than a residual concern.
Class 7: Populism and social policy This session examines populism and populist parties through the lens of social policy, with a strong emphasis on theoretical debates. It introduces key definitions of populism, including understandings of populism as a thin-centered ideology, a political style, and a mode of representation. The discussion explores different forms of populism, such as left-wing, right-wing, and technocratic variants, and considers how each relates differently to welfare state institutions. Attention is given to core populist claims about “the people,” elites, and sovereignty, and how these claims are translated into social policy positions. The session also addresses debates over whether populism should be understood as a democratic corrective or as a threat to liberal-democratic governance. By linking theory to welfare politics, the class shows how abstract definitions of populism gain meaning through concrete policy choices.
Class 8: Radical parties and migration policy (class debate) This session is structured as a class debate on radical politics and immigration policy, focusing on claims that welfare states attract migration and undermine social solidarity. The debate will be guided by questions such as whether social policy creates incentives for so-called welfare tourism, and how such claims are supported or challenged by empirical evidence. Participants will consider how anti-immigration positions frame fairness, contribution, and protection of public resources. The discussion will also address whether restricting welfare access strengthens social cohesion or deepens exclusion and inequality. Attention will be given to how radical right and radical left actors differently interpret migration in relation to the welfare state. The aim is to use structured disagreement to examine how immigration policy becomes a central site of radical political contestation.
Class 9: Gender, sexuality and radical politics This session explores the intersection of gender, sexuality, and radical politics, with particular attention to how welfare states shape and are shaped by these dynamics. It examines how radical right parties often mobilize traditional family ideals, moralized notions of reproduction, and heteronormative social policies to define belonging and control social behavior. In contrast, radical left actors may advance policies that de-familialize care, promote gender equality, or expand sexual rights, often challenging the assumptions underpinning existing welfare institutions. The class will consider both policy design and political rhetoric, highlighting the ways social policy becomes a tool for regulating bodies, identities, and social norms.
Guiding questions for discussion:
Class 10: Radical parties and economic policy This session examines how radical political parties engage with economic policy, with a focus on the welfare state as both a redistributive tool and a site of political contestation. It explores the different approaches of radical left and radical right actors: the left often emphasizes decommodification, progressive taxation, and the expansion of public goods, while the right may combine market-oriented reforms with selective protection for “insiders” and welfare chauvinism. The discussion considers how economic insecurity, labor market changes, and fiscal constraints shape the policy agendas and rhetorical strategies of radical parties. Attention is also given to the tension between ideological commitments and the pragmatic demands of governance. The class highlights how economic policy becomes a lens for understanding broader debates over inequality, inclusion, and the limits of state intervention.
Guiding questions for discussion:
Class 11: Environmental politics and radical parties This session explores the intersection of radical politics and environmental policy, with a focus on how welfare states and social policy interact with ecological agendas. It examines how radical left actors often link climate action to social justice, advocating for policies that combine environmental protection with redistribution, just transition, and the expansion of public goods. In contrast, radical right movements may selectively engage with environmental issues, emphasizing national interests, protection of “insiders,” or resisting policies perceived as threatening economic security. The class considers how environmental crises create opportunities for both transformative and exclusionary policy experiments, and how social policy instruments—subsidies, energy pricing, employment programs—become tools for political mobilization. Students are encouraged to think about the tensions between sustainability, growth, and welfare provision, as well as the rhetorical strategies radical actors use to frame environmental issues.
Guiding questions for discussion:
Class 12: Education and knowledge policy This session examines how radical political parties engage with education and knowledge policy, focusing on the ways schools, universities, and vocational systems become arenas for ideological contestation. Radical left actors often emphasize access, equality, critical pedagogy, and the decolonization of curricula, seeking to challenge social hierarchies and reproduce emancipatory knowledge. Radical right movements, in contrast, may promote nationalist curricula, traditional values, and selective investment in skills seen as serving economic competitiveness or social cohesion for “insiders.” The discussion highlights how educational policy both reflects and shapes broader political projects, including debates over social mobility, citizenship, and collective identity. Students will consider how education policy can be used to reproduce, contest, or transform social norms and power relations.
Class 13: Unemployment and radical politics This session explores the relationship between radical politics and unemployment, with a focus on how welfare states respond to labor market insecurity and economic precarity. It examines how radical left parties often advocate for active labor market policies, social protection, and stronger worker rights to mitigate inequality and empower marginalized groups. Radical right movements, by contrast, may emphasize employment protection for “insiders,” moralized notions of work, and restrictions on benefits for outsiders, linking social policy to nationalist or exclusionary agendas. The discussion considers how unemployment becomes both a material and symbolic site of political contestation, shaping public perceptions of fairness, deservingness, and social cohesion. Students are encouraged to analyze the policy instruments—benefits, training programs, job guarantees—through which radical actors seek to implement their visions of labor and social order.
Guiding questions for discussion:
Last update: Gurín Martin, Dr. phil. Mgr. (13.02.2026)
|