This chapter examines how has the relevance of political science developed in Croatia, Hungary and Lithuania, that is how is the profession engaged with important audiences, namely the student body, society at large and pragmatic politics. Similar to the Western context the normative and pragmatic understanding of relevance appear in these emerging political science communities while identity formation and the achievement and preservation of legitimacy also define how political science can become relevant. The concept of relevance is built on three dimensions related to three potential fields of engagement: knowledge provision, social presence and practical impact. This chapter highlights that the profession continues to be beset by problems relating to the issue of relevance but differences between the countries are pronounced. Moreover, the three main aspects of relevance have not been achieved to the same level within the same country although we can duly expect a degree of adjustment as the three aspects are interconnected and will influence one another. This chapter argues that the development of relevance is a two-way process: government and university policies act as the external context, while the profession’s interests, commitment and ambitions constitute the internal force marking the way forward.

These conflicting interests have caused the inability to reach an agreement on the legal status of the body of water, led to its militarization; and caused the conflict over the exploitation and transportation of oil and gas. Solving part of these problems in recent times has increased the stability of the region, but was also carried out in such a way that it increased the international influence of Russia, and prevented the entry of external forces into the region.Key words: Caspian Sea, militarization, geopolitics, natural resources, international agreements Kaspijsko jezero najveća je vodom ispunjena depresija na svijetu. Prije raspada SSSR-a dijelile su ga samo dvije države, a nakon 1991. na njegovim obalama nalazi se pet država. Ovaj rad pokazuje da postoji uzročno-posljedični odnos između sukobljenih interesa država regije i svjetskih sila te regionalne nestabilnosti. Sukobljeni interesi prouzročili su nemogućnost postizanja dogovora o pravnom statusu jezera, doveli do militarizacije jezera te izazvali sukob oko iskorištavanja i transporta nafte i plina. Rješavanje dijela tih problema u najnovije vrijeme povećalo je stabilnost regije, ali je i izvedeno na takav način da je povećalo međunarodni utjecaj Rusije i spriječilo ulazak izvanjskih sila u regiju.

Komparativna politika u Hrvatskoj prošla je faze početnog razvoja i institucionalizacije. Od svog osnivanja 1962. Fakultet političkih znanosti u Zagrebu glavna je znanstvena i visokoobrazovna institucija za političku znanost u Hrvatskoj te se komparativna politika u hrvatskoj političkoj znanosti primarno razvijala i institucionalizirala na njemu. U prva četiri desetljeća postojanja Fakulteta sporadično su se provodila istraživanja i objavljivali znanstveni radovi o stranim politikama te to razdoblje smatramo fazom početnog razvoja komparativne politike. Osnivanje Odsjeka za komparativnu politiku na Fakultetu 2004. godine označilo je početak sustavnog rada na njezinu daljnjem razvoju kroz znanstvena istraživanja i nastavu na studiju politologije. To je omogućilo institucionalizaciju poddiscipline koju analiziramo uz pomoć teorijskog koncepta Gabrielle Ilonszki s pet značajki institucionalizacije: identitetom, autonomijom, reprodukcijom, legitimnosti i stabilnosti. Na temelju te analize donosimo zaključke o tome kakvo je stanje komparativne politike na Fakultetu političkih znanosti u Zagrebu 2022., 60 godina nakon osnivanja Fakulteta i 18 godina nakon osnivanja Odsjeka.

No abstract

The institutionalisation of political science in the four countries emerged after the break-up of Yugoslavia—Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia—has not been a uniform process. Despite the discipline’s foundation at almost the same time and in the same state, there are considerable differences among them in terms of stability and autonomy. Some of the most salient, albeit certainly not all are numbers of institutions, professors, students and study programs, development of political science fields, state funding, and hiring procedure. Our investigation on the roots of differences between them covers two periods. The first one deals with the Communist Yugoslav period, when the first institutions of political science were founded, and the discipline went through three decades of development under autocratic regime. Second period deals with the following three decades of institutionalisation, from first multi-party elections in 1990 until 2020. We finish the chapter with concluding remarks which could also be perceived as a guideline for further research in the field.