Suchergebnisse

Leading articles in both the current issue of APSR (Winter 1969–70) and of PS (Fall 1969) attack an identical quotation from my chapter in "The Public and the Polity" in Contemporary Political Science. In reply to Professor Sheldon Wolin's article in APSR, I wrote a short reply for he clearly misinterpreted the quotation in an otherwise serious article. Professor Surkin's piece, "Sense and Non-sense in Politics" in PS frustrates all my attempts at a short reply, for the issue is not the text of a particular quotation that has become a minor cause célebre, but rather the central thesis of his article that is in error. His is an error that has become sufficiently widely diffused these days that it needs a serious reply.The issue is the role of value judgments in political science. The common error is the assertion that modern political science has been non-normative and value-free, or at least has aimed at being so. The statement is usually made in criticism of so-called behavioral political science and in favor of a supposed post-behavioral revolution, which is alleged to be seeking a new concern for relevance. Professor Surkin's article is a particular variant on that theme. He states that his purpose is to show that a particular social science methodology, namely, "claimed objectivity and value neutrality" leads to a "non-objective role for social science knowledge in the service of the dominant institutions in American society". Here is an important set of allegations.

Political uncertainty has had a significant influence on economic activities, and in various contexts. The Republic of Burundi was used as a case study to illustrate the argument. President Nkurunziza's possible re-election for a third non-constitutional term has sparked massive protests within the country, which had dire consequences for Burundi's economic performance. This analysis however proves that economic growth and investment started to recover almost immediately after President Nkurunziza was sworn in, and despite on-going conflict between police forces and opposition in the capital. Classical accounts of political instability cannot explain this particular trend, and this is where political uncertainty comes in. GDP growth rates and investment dropped in mid-2015 as market actors could not predict the next course of events. Once it became clear that President Nkurunziza was to stay in power, political uncertainty was considerably reduced and the pace of economic activities started to increase again.

Venezuela has had a long and bloody history of military dictatorships. Yet, since 1958, it has developed one of the few effective, competitive democracies in Latin America. To explain this transformation Daniel H. Levine analyzes the development of modern mass-based political parties with pervasive organizations and commanding strong loyalties; the changing structure and content of social and political conflict; and the gradual emergence of common norms governing political behavior. This book does not pretend to be a general survey of Venezuelan politics. Rather, it is an attempt to understa.

© 2020 The Author. Parliamentary History published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of Parlimentary History Yearbook Trust. When Melbourne replaced Grey in 1834 he looked to recruit men with experience to join his government. He enlisted Sir John Cam Hobhouse, but Hobhouse needed a seat in the Commons. This was achieved by a writ of acceleration, whereby Viscount Duncannon, one of the sitting MPs for Nottingham, was called into the Lords in his father's lifetime to release a seat in the Commons. Writs had normally been used to strengthen the power of the government in the Lords, and the resentment in Nottingham at this political fix was expressed in a full-scale contest with accusations that the town was being turned into a government nomination borough. Hobhouse might have hoped for a free run as he had already been appointed to the cabinet. Rather, he was forced to fight for the seat, and to go through most of the activities more frequently associated with general elections.

"This is a study of the contemporary European ultra-nationalist movement, in-depth. Zúquete studies the individuals, political parties, and broader trends to demonstrate the growing strength and alliances among these once disparate groups fighting against perceived Islamic encroachment and rising immigration. Zúquete also ties the European experience to the emerging American nationalist identity, culminating in their support of Trump and this year's public protests on university campuses"--

ABSTRACTAlthough collaborative research has become much more common in the social sciences, including political science, little is known about the consequences of collaboration. This article uses papers submitted to the American Political Science Review to assess whether the widely acknowledged benefits of collaboration produced papers that were more likely to be accepted for publication. The results indicate that collaboration per se made little or no difference, but that the disciplinary configuration of the authors did result in differences in the success of these submissions.

While the study of Black politics in the American context has not been a top priority in political science, it is indisputable that this topic in general is more likely to be discussed in the discipline's journals in recent decades than in the more distant past. What accounts for this noticeable increase in prominence? How did the study of Black politics move from total obscurity to occupying a more significant (although still relatively marginalized) position within mainstream political science? To answer these questions, we draw a parallel between politics and political science. Specifically, we posit that the increased focus on African American politics is due to Black agency in the form of social movement activity, which reached its zenith during the civil rights movement. Before the civil rights movement, we note as numerous others have, that the racially conservative views of American society in the nineteenth century resulted in Black politics being an understudied area. We argue, however, that as social movement activity increased the salience of racial issues in America, so too did it raise the importance of race for political scientists.

There is a striking lack of research on the utilisation of expert knowledge in public policy debates and party political mobilisation. Existing contributions in related fields of scholarship generate rather contradictory expectations. On the one hand, political communications literature points to the dumbing down of political debate, implying a limited role for expert knowledge. On the other hand, a number of prominent sociologists have noted the centrality of science in political debate on the politics of risk. This article suggests that the two theses are not necessarily incompatible. For knowledge to be reported in the media, it clearly needs to conform to criteria of novelty, drama and scandal, but scientific findings can and often do meet these criteria, especially in areas of risk, where there is enormous potential to scandalise government actions or omissions. The article illustrates these tendencies through an analysis of the use of expert knowledge in UK debates on migration from 2002 to 2004. It explores how research was used in parliamentary debates, speeches and newspaper coverage of three prominent episodes in the politics of migration. The examples demonstrate well how the mass media utilises research to expose political scandal. The analysis also suggests the ambivalence of political actors and especially incumbents in drawing on research. While governments are keen to utilise research to legitimise policies, they are also aware of the limitations of science in underpinning risky decisions. The article concludes with a discussion of how politics has responded to this dilemma.

The emergence of the Perestroika movement in U.S. political science was an important moment in the contemporary history of our discipline, and as we approach the 10-year anniversary of this movement, it is fitting that PS should publish a retrospective symposium on its origins and significance.

The epigraph beginning this article came from a student in my
standard Introduction to Political Theory course at the end of the
fall, 2005 semester. This course was offered at San Francisco State
University (SFSU), a large (30,000 students), public, urban
institution and part of the California State University system. The
size of the class was 45 students, typical for such an introductory
course, consisting mostly of juniors and majors in political science
(since the course is a requirement for graduation for such majors).
The intellectual caliber of the students appeared to be normally
dispersed: there were some excellent students and some weak ones,
especially with regard to the latter group's writing skills—a quite
common occurrence at SFSU. Almost all of the students had completed
at least one other core class (usually Introduction to American
Government or Comparative Politics) and were taking a political
science elective concurrently with the introductory political theory
course.

Ownership of sport : philosophical perspectives -- Ownership and the history of sport -- Corporate ownership of sport -- Who owns community sport? -- Politics, policy and the ownership of sport -- Ownership of sport for development and peace -- Who owns sport at sport mega events? -- Towards a framework for understanding who owns sport.