Krupavičius, Algis

The 4th International Conference on Social and Health Sciences brought together global experts, researchers, and professionals to explore innovative solutions and strategies for building a future based on innovation, humanism and cooperation in today’s divided world. This event was organized into three thematic sessions, each addressing crucial aspects of Ai and business, healthcare and human well-being, as well as geopolitics, security, and regional and global cooperation in times of uncertainty.

Many people still assume that high abstract support for democracy as an ideal means that democracy itself is healthy. In reality, in times of local and global turbulence, democracy and human rights have largely become formal or performative – enshrined in laws and rhetoric, yet ineffective in delivering genuine civic participation, rule of law, inclusion, or social justice.

This article presents an interdisciplinary risk assessment framework for predicting state reactions to major international conflicts (MICs). Drawing on Rausand and Haugen's risk assessment theory from management science, and incorporating five prominent international relations theories from political science, the framework addresses three structural problems that have limited existing foreign policy prediction: the generalizability problem, the deductive contradiction problem, and the data uncertainty problem. The framework answers three essential questions – "What can go wrong?", "What is the likelihood of that happening?", and "What are the consequences?" – by combining inductive historical sampling, a theory-neutral identification of causal-explanatory factors (CEFs), and a logistic regression model. The article's primary contribution is methodological: it bridges the gap between management science's underdeveloped risk assessment in international conflict contexts and political science's limited predictive capability over state behaviour.

Democratic institutions across the globe are under unprecedented strain. This article examines the multidimensional crisis afflicting contemporary democracies, focusing on two interrelated axes of deterioration: the erosion of citizen trust in democratic institutions and the declining performance of democratic governance. Drawing on comparative political science, institutional theory, and empirical survey data from major longitudinal studies including the World Values Survey, Eurobarometer, and the V-Dem Project, the article argues that trust erosion and performance deficits constitute a self-reinforcing feedback loop that progressively delegitimises democratic regimes. The article surveys the structural, socioeconomic, and cultural drivers of this decline, evaluates competing theoretical frameworks for understanding democratic malaise, and proposes a normative and institutional agenda for democratic renewal. The central thesis holds that restoring democracy's vitality requires simultaneous attention to procedural integrity, substantive policy performance, and the deliberative quality of political life.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of European welfare regimes, focusing on the Nordic (Sweden), Continental (Germany), Southern (Italy), and Eastern European (Lithuania) models. Drawing on Esping-Andersen’s typology and contemporary social investment theory, it examines how institutional design, fiscal capacity, and sociopolitical legacies shape welfare performance across Europe. Using a qualitative comparative framework supported by Eurostat and OECD data, the study assesses social expenditure, labour market inclusion, and inequality reduction. The findings reveal enduring diversity alongside gradual convergence. Nordic regimes remain the most universal and egalitarian; Continental systems are recalibrated through activation and incremental reform; Southern regimes are constrained by familialism and fiscal inflexibility; and Eastern European systems show hybrid features shaped by transition legacies and EU influence. The paper concludes that European welfare states are evolving toward “differentiated convergence”, blending traditional regime logics with elements of social investment and activation.

This article examines Lithuania’s public policy evolution from 1990 to the mid-2020s, tracing its shift from a centralized Soviet system to an EU-integrated democratic state. It highlights the transformative impact of EU accession on governance, administrative capacity, and policy convergence. Lithuania’s policy-making is characterized by a mix of incremental reforms, selective rational planning, and occasional crisis-driven “garbage-can” dynamics. Despite advances in transparency, digital governance, and public administration, policy-making remains highly centralized, with limited civic participation and persistent regional disparities. The article identifies major contemporary challenges, including demographic decline, social inequality, healthcare pressures, skills shortages, and the demands of governing amid overlapping crises. It also reviews developments in public policy research, noting progress in governance and social policy studies alongside gaps in evaluation and implementation.

The 2024 European Parliament elections in Lithuania reflected second-order dynamics, with low turnout (28.97%) and limited focus on European issues, as domestic and presidential elections dominated. Despite 15 parties competing, mainstream Europhile parties won 10 of 11 seats, led by the HU-LChD, which faced declining voter support alongside other major parties. Campaigns emphasized national concerns like security, economic challenges, and social policies, while Euroscepticism gained traction, particularly among minor parties. The election highlighted growing political fragmentation, dissatisfaction with the ruling coalition, and challenges ahead for national elections in October 2024.