The article identifies the most important controversies related to public opinion polls on electoral preferences, explains their substance, & discusses their impact on the possibility to use information obtained in the surveys. The article further focuses on the importance of surveys for representative democracy, the impact of the publication of opinion polls' results on public opinion, the possibilities of manipulating surveys, the risks related to the growth of research production (high non-response rate & the growth of survey costs, non-transparency of the market, incorrect application of advanced data analyses), the limits to election forecasting, & issues related to the relationship between research & journalism. Opinion polls contribute to shaping the environment for political competition. The nature of their impact is determined by their quality. Serious risks are associated with the possibility for intentional manipulation, poor quality of the survey process, & misinterpretation of results. Knowledge on research, publication of contextual information together with the survey data, & free competition in the market can help reduce the risks. The possibilities for quantification in social research do not remove the obligation to ensure sound theoretical grounding & qualified judgment, which are the prerequisites for the credibility of all conclusions drawn from the data. Tables, Graphs, References. Adapted from the source document.
The paper analyses impacts of environmental regulation on Czech power system. We employ MESSAGE modelling platform to construct a dynamic linear optimisation energy model of the Czech power system. We analyse regulation impacts on fuel use and CO2 emission, fuel-mix and technology-mix, induced investment and fuel and other O&M costs to generate electricity over the period 2006-2030. Negative external costs attributable to endogenously determined new level of air quality pollutants are quantified to make our cost-benefit analysis more complex. Overall, effects of four policy scenarios are assessed, including subsidies for renewable energy, increase in air quality charge rates and an introduction of the EU ETS in the Czech power system. Based on our simulation, we find that prospected 10-fold increase in charging of air quality pollutant would not have any significant effect on emission and would not bring any stimuli for change in technology and fuel mixes. Subsidy to renewable energy would result in their development; however, larger effect would appear in far future and only if new nuclear power units are not allowed to build. Auctioned EUA, especially above Euro15 per tonne of CO2, would be the only effective instrument with significant effects on power sector. Key factor on CO2 emission is whether scenario consists of new nuclear power units or these units are banned. Our simulation results hold even if we allow the key model assumption to vary, except, the discount rate that would have effect on whether more-investment intensive technologies are used to generate electricity. Adapted from the source document.
Max Weber, Clifford Geertz, & Rudolf Bultmann are often cited by anthropologists & sociologists who are trying to determine the essence of human sciences through a deep analysis of the subjective meanings that the actor sets to his/her behavior. This article provides an analysis of theoretical & epistemological conceptions of the three thinkers mentioned above, & the author concludes that each of them uses the construction of subjective justification in a different way. Weber distinguishes behavior itself from its meaning, which is constituted by a subjective reference to the values of the actor, & also of the recipient (or researcher). In Weber's point of view, someone else's meaning of behavior is eventually undeterminable, & the researcher can only come close to the subjective meaning through an ideal-typical construction, although Weber eventually does not refuse such ideal-typical constructions behind the cognitive possibilities of the actor. Geertz's attempt at an orientation of a description according to the actor primarily leads to the view of cultural & social facts from a bird's eye perspective, to a presumably deeper understanding than the actor is able to have. In this article the author argues that the differences between Weber's & Geertz's theoretical constructions originate in their contrasting conceptions of the nature of culture. Another such case is Bultmann, owing to the fact that he does not concentrate on the subjective meaning of action in a narrow sense, while he aims at, in his eyes, all human existential experience of reality.
Příspěvek přednesený profesorem Hubou, současným předsedou výboru pre pôdohospodárstvo a životné prostredie Národní rady SR, na česko-slovenské Konferenci o udržitelném rozvoji a ústupu v Olomouci (8.11. 2012) hodnotí vývoj v oblasti životního prostředí z perspektivy uplynulých 25 let (od r. 1987, kdy vznikla Zpráva komise OSN pro životní prostředí a rozvoj s názvem Naše společná budoucnost, tzv. Zpráva Brundtlandové), či dokonce 40 let (v r. 1972 se konala Stockholmská konference o životním prostředí člověka). Rekapituluje jeho nejdůležitější milníky, kterých byl autor aktivním účastníkem, a to na úrovni globální, evropské, a v rámci Slovenska – v období jeho významných celospolečenských proměn. Kam tento vývoj směřuje – to je řečnická otázka, jejíž odpověď stále méně ovlivňují ti, kterým na budoucnosti opravdu záleží.(Z príspevku na česko-slovenskej konferencii o udržateľnom rozvoji a ústupe v Olomouci, 8.11. 2012) ; This paper, presented by Professor Huba, the current Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and the Environment of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, at the Czecho-Slovak Conference on Sustainable Development and Retreat in Olomouc (8 Nov 2012), evaluates the development in the environmental sphere from the perspective of the past 25 years (since 1987, when the report Our Common Future from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Report, was published), or even 40 years (Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment was held in 1972). It recapitulates its major milestones, in which the author was actively involved at the global, European and Slovak levels at the time of a major society-wide transformation in Slovakia. Where this development leads is a rhetorical question the answer to which is less and less influenced by those to whom future really matters.
The aim of the paper is to discuss the issue of innovation from the perspective of relevant sociological interpretative frameworks. The discussion starts with an assessment of evolutionary and institutional economic studies of innovation, which have contributed to a better understanding of the role of institutional and social factors in the formation of innovation resources and the performance of (innovating) firms and (innovating) nation states. The concepts of a national innovation system (Nelson), the learning firm (Lundvall) and the social system of production (Hollingsworth) are discussed to explain this contribution in more detail. They indicate a set of socio-cultural factors and circumstances that can be identifi ed not only as implications of the techno-economic power of innovation but also as the autonomous factors that shape the performance of innovating actors. The EU Lisabon strategy is faced with a similar challenge: to balance the issue of competitiveness with environmental issues and social cohesion. The current debate over fulfilling its goals (the Kok report) offers good arguments as to how techno-economic and socio-cultural resources of innovation could be theorised and governed. In this article, selected methodological frameworks and databases (EIS 2005, EXIS) are applied in an analysis of the social forms and structures of national innovation systems. The final discussion refers both to the relevant concepts (the learning economy, knowledge societies, reflexive modernisation) and the analytical data in order to suggest a concept of innovation, which understands both economic and social factors to be productive resources of current innovation performance. The suggested interpretative framework is used to assess the structural dependencies and challenges of the innovation system in the Czech Republic.
Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.
The article analyses the evolution of the Slovak political party "Smer" (Direction) and its position in the party system of Slovak Republic. The article focuses on the shift of the party program from the "Centrist Populism" towards "Social Democracy." According to the first program documents the Party of "Smer" (Direction) was designed as pragmatic, non-ideological party. In the persistent conflict between authoritarianism vs. democracy "Smer" identified itself as the pro-democratic and pro-market force. Party policy before 2002 contained only few social democratic components; it was closer to the conservative or right-wing populist parties. After the parliamentary election 2002 and the failure of non-communist left "Smer" decided to become a member of the Socialist International (SI) and Party of European Socialists (PES). The process of the institutional approach to the international Social Democratic Party structures was accompanied by the substantial changes in the social and economic program of the party. The process was completed on the institutional level in May 2005, when Smer joined both SI and PES, and on the level of political program on the Party Congress in December 2005. In the process of so called "socialdemocratisation" of "Smer" the international factor played crucial role, especially the need to have an international partner in the European Parliament. "Smer" met the standards of the Social Democratic identity only in the social and economic affairs. The other five dimensions - environmental policy, participative democracy, cultural and human-rights dimension, supra-national dimension and the dimension of equality and freedom "Smer" met only partially or not at all, so these process remains unfinished. According to some political declarations "Smer" remains the populist party and the uncompromising critic of the right-wing government of Mikuláš Dzurinda, on the other side the official documents of the party anticipate only the moderate corrections of the economical and social reforms, ...
This article provides an analysis of the of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping, one of the hottest topics in international politics of the post-cold war era. Numerous books, articles, and Ph.D. thesis have already been written about UN peacekeeping operations. Although differing vastly in their scope and quality, most of the recent critiques have pointed out the pressing need to re-define and strengthen the cold war era concept of UN peacekeeping so that it becomes a viable conflict resolution method in the 21st century. Some scholars have, however, expressed serious doubts about the actual conflict resolution capabilities of UN peacekeeping operations. They argue that premature, short-tenn and under funded UN peacekeeping operations may well do more damage than good. One of the few things the majority of conflict resolution scholars and practitioners can nowadays agree on is that no UN intervention can bring peace to a place where it is not wanted.This article aims to enrich the current peace research by introducing an alternative analytical approach to the study of the UN peacekeeping. It is divided into seven sections. The introduction is followed by a theoretical section where I briefly summarize two basic theoretical approaches to the study of the UN peacekeeping (Conflict Management & Conflict Resolution). The third section provides an analysis of the changing nature of armed conflicts in the post-cold war period. The fourth section deals with the adjustments that were made to the concept of UN peacekeeping operations in reaction to the changes in the nature of current armed conflicts. The analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap is introduced in the fifth chapter, followed by the core section of this article -- the analysis of the United Nations peacekeeping using the analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap. The analytical concept Capabilities versus Expectations Gap was first introduced by Christopher Hill in 1992 as a handy tool for analyzing the evolving European Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The unique advantage of this concept is that it provides a sensible assessment of both the actual and potential UN capabilities. By comparing these with the existing UN expectations, the Capabilities versus Expectations Gap analysis of UN peacekeeping enables us to sketch a more realistic picture of what the UN is capable of doing in the area of conflict resolution than that presented either by its more enthusiastic supporters or by the demanders among the UN Member States. Consequently, building further on this realistic picture of the UN conflict resolution capabilities, I attempt to answer the key research question of this article: Is the UN, with the current level of its conflict resolution capabilities, capable of providing high quality treatment to as many conflicts as it nowadays attempts to provide? Based on the findings of the Capabilities versus Expectations Gap analysis of the UN peacekeeping problematic, I argue that since the end of the cold war, the UN has several times attempted to carry out more peacekeeping operations than it was capable of performing well in light of the current level of its conflict resolution capabilities. In other words, the most important conclusion of this article is that there is a gap between the UN capabilities and expectations in the area of conflict resolution and that the only option how to bridge this gap in the foreseeable future is to decrease the excessive UN expectations to meet the currently available UN capabilities. As paradoxical as it may sound, in practical terms this means that the United Nations is nowadays more likely to succeed in meeting its basic function ("to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war") by carrying out fewer but high quality peacekeeping operations. Adapted from the source document.
Both in the Czech and European contexts, the Council of the EU is a relatively frequent subject of interest in political science research. A substantial amount of work (both in the tradition of qualitative and quantitative research) focuses especially on the process of coalition building and the impact and functioning of the different levels of the Council. This theoretical discussion analyzes the possibilities which both the qualitative and quantitative approaches offer concerning research dealing with the coalition behavior of one concrete EU member state. In doing so, it takes into account various specifics which characterize the Council of the EU and which substantially influence the behavior of its member states. The paper concludes that the qualitative approach (while being to a substantial degree complementary to the quantitative tradition) offers better tools for an analysis focusing on the coalition behavior of one member state than its quantitative counterpart. One of the reasons lies in the nature of our research which deals with the process of promoting the interests of the Czech Republic in the EU Council, with a special emphasis on coalition building and searching for compromises. ; Both in the Czech and European contexts, the Council of the EU is a relatively frequent subject of interest in political science research. A substantial amount of work (both in the tradition of qualitative and quantitative research) focuses especially on the process of coalition building and the impact and functioning of the different levels of the Council. This theoretical discussion analyzes the possibilities which both the qualitative and quantitative approaches offer concerning research dealing with the coalition behavior of one concrete EU member state. In doing so, it takes into account various specifics which characterize the Council of the EU and which substantially influence the behavior of its member states. The paper concludes that the qualitative approach (while being to a substantial degree complementary to ...
"Bringing space back" into comparative politics is a difficult task, perhaps inevitably accompanied by various substantive and methodological problems. This paper introduces the concepts of "territorial homogeneity" (of D. Caramani) and "party nationalization" (of M. Jones and S. Mainwaring), both of them dealing with political parties as actors and territorial space as an environment in which they operate. Our aim is to identify some of the typical issues/ matters (selection of cases, elaboration of relationships among variables) any researcher who would try to conceptualize the relationships between political parties and territorial units has to cope with. In respect of issues in question the solutions offered by Caramani and Jones&Mainwaring often seem neither intercompatible nor fully satisfactory. This may raise the question about inevitably ethnocentristic nature of the "homogeneity concepts". We further extend our methodological note, limiting -rather than delineating- the areas of possible use of the homogeneity concept for the post-communist countries, arguing that sensible comparisons would require much better control for intervening institutional variables- a task which is almost impossible to achieve with such a heterogeneous sample. ; "Bringing space back" into comparative politics is a difficult task, perhaps inevitably accompanied by various substantive and methodological problems. This paper introduces the concepts of "territorial homogeneity" (of D. Caramani) and "party nationalization" (of M. Jones and S. Mainwaring), both of them dealing with political parties as actors and territorial space as an environment in which they operate. Our aim is to identify some of the typical issues/ matters (selection of cases, elaboration of relationships among variables) any researcher who would try to conceptualize the relationships between political parties and territorial units has to cope with. In respect of issues in question the solutions offered by Caramani and Jones&Mainwaring often seem ...
The paper comments on issues of conceptualisation and typology of regional parties in Europe. Regional parties could be defined briefly as independent formations with regional identity, region–based legitimacy and region–based electoral resources. The territorial aspect of their identity and of their modus operandi is the crucial one in this respect. It should be reminded that a number of heterogeneous party phenomena could be subsumed under the label of regional parties. The existence of a genuine regional party family, which could be, eventually, included into the classic familles spirituelles scheme, is not obvious. It seems that recent attempts to conceptualise the regional (and/or ethno–regional) party family have only small chance to success. Moreover, it should not be taken for granted that invention of such party family would enhance the capacity for comparative research into the European regional party phenomena. It could be a counter–productive move. There is an implicit danger to be avoided: that of conceiving of the differences between regional parties and non–regional parties as the differences between party families. However, these differences are not of the same kind. The paper proposes to distinguish several types of regional parties according to their origins (genuine regional autonomist parties, regionalized branches of state–wide parties etc.) which could allow for a sophisticated explanation of their heterogeneity and of various combinations of the systemic properties of regional parties. It is also suitable to pay more attention to the differing opportunity structures and to the compounded nature of territorial–political operational space of regional parties. ; The paper comments on issues of conceptualisation and typology of regional parties in Europe. Regional parties could be defined briefly as independent formations with regional identity, region–based legitimacy and region–based electoral resources. The territorial aspect of their identity and of their modus operandi is the crucial one ...
The study examines public's perceptions of the political climate in the Slovak society before the Parliamentary Elections scheduled for 2002. It compares public's opinions and views during two specific periods-In October 1997-a year before Parliamentary Elections (three years into Vladimir Mečiar's government) and in September 2001 (approximately 3 years into the government of Mikulaš Dzurinda). Findings of two separate empirical sociological surveys, one conducted in October 1997, other in September 2001, conducted by the Institute for Public Affairs form the basis for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that despite the fact that the public perceived the socio-political situation as gradually worsening after the 1998 Parliamentary elections, their perceptions as recorded in September 2001, are qualitatively of a different nature than those observed in October 1997 (Vladimir Mečiar's government). This difference was observed mainly in the area of public's perception of problems in the society, evaluation of developments in specific areas [in society], as well as the degree of public's pre-election expectations. When it comes to public opinion, the general mood before the 2002 elections is dictated predominantly by the problems in the economy and the social sphere-it is not caused by any shortcomings in guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law, as was the case before 1998 election. ; The study examines public's perceptions of the political climate in the Slovak society before the Parliamentary Elections scheduled for 2002. It compares public's opinions and views during two specific periods-In October 1997-a year before Parliamentary Elections (three years into Vladimir Mečiar's government) and in September 2001 (approximately 3 years into the government of Mikulaš Dzurinda). Findings of two separate empirical sociological surveys, one conducted in October 1997, other in September 2001, conducted by the Institute for Public Affairs form the basis for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that ...
The relation between the working of democratic systems today and the exploitation of "modern" forms of politically motivated extreme violence, especially the different types of subversive terrorism, has been an object of thorough study and discussion at most varied levels in the course of recent decades, often with contradictory results. This is not a surprise bearing in mind the diversity of bases for such study and discussion, as well as the complexity and changing nature of the subject matter itself, and last but not least, also the deforming impact of different political factors which in many a case predetermined both the horizon of discussions and the character of "politically correct" or at least acceptable conclusions. This does not apply just to decayed political and propagandist writings displaying a remarkable dose of cynicism and lack of shame in serving the interests of power which decided who would be labelled "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", or else. There is a number of scientific works defending the principles and values of democracy which also display apparent effort to a priori exclude raising a particular problem in full in order to prevent any doubt being cast on the purposefulness and justifiability of traditional approaches to and standpoints regarding the assessment of political violence and extremism. At the same time, polemics regarding terrorism had a large impact. Discussions about terrorism changed the way the public felt about both terrorism as a particular category of extremist violence, and politically motivated violence and extremism as such, propagating and reinforcing the view of political violence (acceptance of violent methods of political fight including terrorism) as an utterly undemocratic and anti-democratic behaviour and as a key characteristic of extremism. There is a growing tendency in substantial part of the public in democratic countries today to a priori associate manifestations of extremist orientation with acts of politically motivated violence, and to identify ...
