Suchergebnisse

This is a story about competition between a primitive political science, a modern political science, and their significance to the future of political science and the state. The old-fashioned political science is comprised of storytelling, otherwise called case studies. The modern, pure political science is committed to the incorporation of the methods of pure science. The difference between the two is the origin of an on-going debate within political science. When the state suffers a threat to its sovereignty, it seeks to suppress or coopt domestic centers of power. It patronizes the pure science because it shows some promise of valuable service. Chile is a significant example. And the older political science will suffer due to its tendency to expose pathologies and its inability to remain neutral. Thus, once the state tends toward authoritarianism, the storytelling political science is likely to suffer because thorough analyses find their way toward criticism, to pathology. Once the state has intervened, the national association may respond but with too little support, and the individual practitioners may have to retreat to their national association and to the International Political Science Association, which may speak for all of the 60+ national associations. The International Political Science Association will be the canary in the coal mine. The Nobel awaits.

Upon my first reading of the Etzioni autobiography, I recalled my favorite book review, written by a nine-year-old, who also should have won a prize for the youngest author and the shortest review ever: "This book told me more about penguins than I wanted to know."

This is a history of illegitimacy in America. And here is my text,
drawn from three Russians, who understand illegitimacy better than
anyone else.

Like all great phenomena, globalization is a blessing & a curse. Globalization is realization of the ideal laid out by Adam Smith in 1776, with the good news that the relatively new nation-states could produce immense surpluses of wealth by reducing trade barriers, allowing entrepreneurs in each state to trade their superior products in return for the superior products of others. However, although penetration of state boundaries is essential for free trade, penetration is not & cannot be restricted to commerce. What follows inevitably is markets in morals, in customs, in religions & cultures as well as in practical rules. Thus, free markets bring war as well as wealth. This essay is an exploration of some of the ways states adjust, or fail to adjust, to compromises between war, wealth, & the special case of corporatism. Adapted from the source document.

People like Glendon Schubert never die. Glen was an individualist who
lived by his work, and I'm one of his products. I was not a born
scholar. I had no idea of what "the life of the mind" was all
about. College was for me merely four more years of high school. Academic
achievement was just competition by other means, and grades were nothing
but a way of keeping score.

In Memoriam of Glendon A. Schubert.

Of all the freedoms for which the cold war was fought, free enterprise was deemed sufficient for acquisition of all the other freedoms. The task of political science should now be to expose the loose and insecure moorings of economic ideology and to develop an approach more appropriate to the realities of our time. Our new millennium is a corporate millennium that has been interpreted in the hegemonic model to mean private and free (that is, unregulated) markets. However, any theory capable of incorporating the corporation has to be one of political economy. The first section of this article identifies six state-provided assumptions homo economicus has to be able to make prior to making or entering a market, without which homo economicus stays home. The second section puts the issue in a global context by identifying three developmental tracks—macro, meso, and micro. Their existence denies the possibility of a pure economic theory of globalization. The third section describes the distinctive politics of each of the three tracks, demonstrating still more conclusively that political economy is the only approach competent to deal with the new corporate millennium. In conclusion, the author argues that political economy is and should be the new political science that this new era requires.