Search results

The article is devoted to the analysis of the so called impossibility theorem, according to which democracy, state sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive and cannot function to the full extent when present simultaneously. This theorem, elaborated in 2011 by Dani Rodrik, a famous economist from Harvard University, poses a fundamental problem about the prospects of the global scalability of political institutions of the nation-state. Is it in principle possible to globalize executive, legislative and judicial branches of power, civil society, and democracy, or is it necessary to limit globalization in order to preserve democracy and nation-state? Rodrik's conclusions, in essence, make one give up hopes to create global democratic order against the background of global capitalism. On the basis of the Stanford School of Sociological Institutionalism and the reconstruction of the historical materialism by Jürgen Habermas, the author refutes Rodrik's theorem. The author's analysis shows that not only is it possible to build democratic order at the global level, but also that it already exists in the form of the world culture that includes such norms as electoral democracy, nation-state, civil society and other institutions of Modernity. The world culture reproduces fundamental social values, playing the role of social integration for the humanity, while global capitalism provides for its material reproduction, playing the role of system integration. However, since globalization is a more dynamic process than the development of the world culture, between material and ideational universalism arises a gap, which in its turn is fraught with various kinds of political and economic crises.

The article discusses the latest issue of Go to think tank ranking and MGIMO position in it. It also considers global trends related to changes in the environment and forms of activities of research centers, identified by the ranking. In particular, it notes the changes in the system of financing think tanks from the few large grants for an extended period of time to a small but numerous grants for short periods for specific projects. It also notes the increasing state pressure on think tanks from around the world. In addition, it points to increased competition on the market of ideas and scientific expertise. Research centers have to adapt to these changes. In view of these trends the experience of one of the research centers of MGIMO, the Center for Military-Political Studies is considered. Innovation activities of the Centre on a whole corresponds to global trends. The center is seeking to diversify its sources of funding and enhances the focus of research topics - long-term forecasting of the international military and political relations.

Civilizations are not a novel subject of research.Todaytheyareincreasinglypopularbothinaca demicandpoliticalspheres.State and non-state actors talk as if civilizations were real actors of world politics. The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics. It finds three actual and one possible directions of civilizational research, namely: civilizational dynamic, inter civilizational ethics, politics of civilizations and civilizational politics. The author stresses the importance of nonessentialist approach in civilizational dynamics studies, its leader being Peter Katzenstein. The rest of the article is devoted to cultivating the selected research direction. The author proposes to view civilizations as a strategic reference framework rather than a real actor of world politics. These reference frameworks are constructed on religious value basis and detailed in a shared literature corpus. They are heterogeneous and in a constant state of flux. It can be viewed as a continuum with one pole being a fundamentalist state of civilization and the opposite one - post secular state of civilization. The middle ground is occupied by secular civilization. The clash and dialogue are not among civilizations but rather among different states or social groups within and among civilizations. The most conflictual group is a fundamentalist one, its reference framework is totally determined by religious values. Compromise for such a group is impossible. The most cooperative group is post secular one since it is based on dialogue. The author concludes that dialogue is guaranteed among post secular societies within the Christian civilization. Within and among non-Christian civilizations dialogue is possible but not guaranteed.

Global governance as a concept defines the meaning of contemporary world politics both as a discipline and as reality. Interdependent and globalized world requires governance, and a global government has not been formed yet. The theoretical possibility of global governance without global government is proved and justified. The purpose of this article is to analytically identify possible forms of global governance. Three such forms of global governance are identified: hierarchical, market and network. In a hierarchy the governance is due to the asymmetry of power between the parties. Market control happens via anonymous pricing mechanism. Network, in contrast to the market is characterized by a closer value link between the actors, but unlike the hierarchical relationship actors are free to leave the network. Global governance takes three forms and is being implemented by different actors. To determine the most efficient form of global governance is impossible. Efficiency depends on the match between a form and an object of government. It should be noted that meta governance is likely to remain a monopoly of institutionally strong states in global governance.

The article discusses the use and transformation of the American scientific concept "soft power" in official Russian and US foreign policy rhetoric with the methodological help of Habermas' communicative action theory and its adoption to IR by T. Risse. In mainstream IR the proliferation of the "soft power" concept is viewed in terms of ideological competition among states. The author argues that it is better to view this process as a form of international political deliberations on new forms of power in world politics. The article shows that there's no communicative action of US and Russia based on their tentative discussion of the "soft power" concept. On of reasons might be the lack of interest of both states for the concept as an ideological basis for cooperative actions. For Russia soft power in its classical form might be used towards its near abroad and probably BIC states. In dealings with western states Russian soft power turns into lobbyism and propaganda which is strictly not soft power. US under Obama have basically refuted the concept, having changed it for analytically meaningless "smart power". The conclusion is that communicative action requires prior existence of commutative rationality. This type of rationality is evident among postmodern states - the EU member states - and apparently absent among modern states such as Russia and US.

.

The article analyses the state of the art and the prospects of the Russian political science in terms of scientific communication. Political science develops through discussion on key problems of its subject matter: political power, legitimacy, justice, political regimes, etc. The quality of the discussion shapes the development of political science. The basic medium of the discussion remains an article in a scientific journal. Editorial policy of the leading journals is a key instrument for shaping the discussion and defining its norms and standards. There are few challenges for the Russian political science with respect to the development of a dialogue among its authors and scientific schools. First, it still has a form of a monologue rather than dialogue. There are a number of attempts to establish a dialogue with the leading foreign authors and a deficit of discussion among Russian political scientists. Second, double blind peer review still remains a rear practice. It is the only means for ensuring the high quality of scientific communication. Third, the quality of the discussion directly depends upon the differentiation of political science in the form of scientific schools. The Russian political science has a low degree of school differentiation. And the few schools that did manage to get established evade a dialogue on constitutive questions on theory and practice of political science. The author suggests that coordination of the leading journals' editorial policy through different forms of institutional interactions including the Russian Political Science Association and the Russian International Studies Association might be an effective tool to encourage the discussion in the Russian political science and dialogue among its schools.

.

The article reviews the content of academic discourse on higher education and globalization. It posits that according to the discourse under globalization the higher education has developed such properties as being transnational, self organizing through networks and commercialized. It also stresses that strategic development and stratification of universities are best understood through the concept of university as a positional good. For the Russian higher education the article suggests moving away from ideas of new public management to governance. Such a step should provide for internationalization of Russian higher education while preserving it as a public good with its national character and traditions.

.

.

.

.