Why do revolutions occur? Some scholars focusing on mass movements and rebellions have addressed the role of focal points and have sought to identify them. Specifically, several studies have focused on “temporal focal points,” such as the tendency of revolutions to occur during election periods or religious events. However, theoretical exploration of “spatial focal points”—locations where citizens and opposition forces gather en masse—has been limited. Against this background, this paper poses the following research question: Where do the masses gather during revolutionary events? To address this, we constructed a novel dataset of 128 revolutionary places across 80 revolutionary events from 1974 to 2014. Using this dataset along with a case study of the Philippines, we examine the theory that places where citizens assembled during past revolutions undergo symbolic sanctification and are more likely to serve as gathering points in subsequent revolutionary movements.

This paper looks to explain the informal political institutions behind the British Conservative Party Leadership selection (1965–1997), and describe the role of the Constituency Association (CA). Leading scholars operationalize the concept of intra-party democracy in leadership selection through the voting rights of local caucuses or party members. However, this analytical lens is not universally applicable, as not everyone shares the same worldview regarding a given variable or political event.

Following this methodological concern, this article adopts an “interpretive approach,” which posits that intersubjective narratives shape actions and institutions. It is based on the premise that epistemologies cannot be reduced to fixed definitions or ontological facts. The selection of the Conservative leader was considered “undemocratic” because only Members of the Commons could vote. However, in fact, the Conservatives acknowledged that MPs and CAs engaged in prior consultations, after which the CA’s opinions were indirectly represented by local MPs. This informal practice reflected the belief that intra-party democracy should function through indirect delegation as an uncodified norm in the leadership election, to preserve British parliamentary sovereignty.

Since Esping-Andersen proposed the welfare regime theory, research on welfare states has flourished in political economy and comparative politics. This paper reviews major studies from the past 30 years, tracing the evolution of political analysis and identifying contemporary challenges. The focus of political analysis on welfare states has shifted over time from structures to institutions to actors. Analyzing research on regime classification using OECD statistical data reveals that differences between welfare regimes have diminished, almost disappearing within EU countries. Furthermore, considering long-term changes, the influence of partisanship on welfare policies largely disappeared in the 1990s. While some studies argue that partisan conflict has evolved from a simple left-right divide to a multidimensional one incorporating socio-cultural cleavages, this claim has not been sufficiently tested in the context of welfare policy. Future challenges for welfare state research include expanding the geographical scope beyond advanced economies, assessing the impact of populist parties on welfare policies, and identifying the political factors that shape the inclusiveness of social investment policies.