Search results

POWER APPROACH IN POLITICAL SCIENCE IS ANALYZED BY FIRST CONTRASTING TRADITIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS OF POWER. SECONDLY, FIVE BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS OF POWER BY SUCH SCHOLARS AS CARTWRIGHT, DAHL, LASSWELL AND KAPLAN, MARCH, AND SIMON ARE EXAMINED TO ILLUSTRATE THE DIVERSITY OF DEFINITIONS OF POWER IN THE DISCIPLINE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

The relationship between political science and the 'real world' of public policy and politics has long been a complicated one. Current calls for more relevance in political science research echo back to the discipline's early days. This essay traces the intertwined history of practice and ivory tower, with specific attention to the rise of economics as a policy-engaged social science. A mini-case study of political scientists' involvement in contemporary health policymaking provides a concrete focus. Adapted from the source document.

chapter Introduction -- chapter 1 Reform versus Knowledge -- chapter 2 Scientists of Wealth & Welfare -- chapter 3 Battle of the Schools -- chapter 4 Patterns of Professionalism -- chapter 5 Compromise -- chapter 6 Compliance -- chapter 7 From Advocacy to Acceptability -- chapter 8 The Perils of Radicalism -- chapter 9 Permissible Dissent -- chapter 10 Collective Security -- chapter 11 Patterns of Authority -- chapter 12 Specialization -- chapter 13 Resolution.

▪ Abstract  We review the use of macroeconomics in political science over the past 40 years. The field has been dominated by new classical theory, which leaves little room for economic policy and focuses attention on what democratic governments can do wrong in the short term. The resulting literatures on political business cycles and central bank independence are large and sophisticated, but they fail, we argue, to account for most of the observed variance in economic policies and outcomes. In the past decade, mainstream macroeconomics has moved away from new classical approaches toward New Keynesian theories with greater scope for macroeconomic policy. These new approaches, with little impact so far in political science, are reviewed and their implications drawn out. Instead of explaining short-sighted government behavior in an economy with little scope for economic policy, the key question for political science may be why governments often pursue longer-run objectives in an economy with considerable scope for economic policy.

We review the use of macroeconomics in political science over the past 40 years. The field has been dominated by new classical theory, which leaves little room for economic policy & focuses attention on what democratic governments can do wrong in the short term. The resulting literatures on political business cycles & central bank independence are large & sophisticated, but they fail, we argue, to account for most of the observed variance in economic policies & outcomes. In the past decade, mainstream macroeconomics has moved away from new classical approaches toward New Keynesian theories with greater scope for macroeconomic policy. These new approaches, with little impact so far in political science, are reviewed & their implications drawn out. Instead of explaining short-sighted government behavior in an economy with little scope for economic policy, the key question for political science may be why governments often pursue longer-run objectives in an economy with considerable scope for economic policy. References. Adapted from the source document.

This book demonstrates the increasing convergence of interest of some social scientists in the theories, research and findings of the life sciences in building a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of politics.