Suchergebnisse

Ontological reflexivity is consistently posited as an important part of being a political scientist, yet the relevant literature has been criticised for being both complex and confused. In this context, the article has three aims: to clarify the purpose of ontology in the discipline; to highlight how ontological assumptions cannot be separated from other factors; and to show the relevance of ontological reflexivity. While the extant literature implies that such assumptions emerge from philosophical reflection, this article shows how epistemological decisions, mundane interests and political orientation can be just as important. Consequently, the original aims of the literature can be reinstated.

Martin Carstensen's recent article is a novel attempt to contribute a theory of incremental ideational change to the relevant discourse and institutionalist literatures. Noticing a potentially problematic twin focus on stable ideas and punctuated equilibrium, Carstensen outlines an alternative framework capable of capturing the true dynamism of political ideas. However, his article and analysis are based on the problematic assumption that analytical frameworks, such as historical institutionalism, make theoretical claims about politics, when instead their purpose is to create an underpinning prism for the construction of explanations. By ignoring this important yet subtle distinction, I claim, Carstensen creates a set of criteria for adjudicating the value of analytical frameworks that is both unfair and potentially inappropriate.

AbstractPrior to the 2008 financial crisis, politicians famously told the public and themselves that 'there is no alternative' to a neoliberal economic paradigm. Fast‐forward to 2019 and there is, instead, the sense that 'maybe there are alternatives'. However, when many observers and commentators look back to the 2008 crisis, they see a general continuity with what went before. In order to gain a better understanding of this 'interregnum', we map five sets of ideas and practices that challenge the policies, ideas, and conventions of pre‐crash orthodoxy. In doing so, we argue that there has been a fundamental transformation in legitimate public discourse about the economy since 2008: ideas and practices that were previously unimaginable or illegitimate in mainstream economic debate are now commonplace. Although this does not represent a 'paradigm shift', it represents significant political change that is important to understand and interrogate on its own terms.

This report presents the findings from an ESRC-funded research project which examined the Annual Tax Summary, a personalised tax and spending statement sent to income taxpayers in the UK. Working with a range of stakeholders, the authors evaluated the Annual Tax Summary and explored alternative ways of reporting on and communicating about tax and public spending. The report draws attention to the political interests that inform fiscal transparency initiatives and challenges common sense confidence in data visualisation as tool for delivering transparency. It questions forms of communication that monetise and individualise taxpayers' contribute to public spending, and that set certain groups of people in tension with each other. In response to each of these issues the authors offer recommendations for communicators who seek to champion the role of tax in society.

Political science and international relations scholarship increasingly places substantive emphasis on, to put it broadly, the power of discourse in shaping world politics. This Special Issue develops a research agenda that seeks to consolidate a set of data collection and analysis strategies that can be used in studying the way in which elite-driven discourses are legitimated and challenged – in other words, an agenda for studying everyday narratives in world politics. In doing so, the Special Issue makes a threefold contribution: it analyses how key themes with world politics are reproduced and narrated; it demonstrates the need to go beyond 'methodological elitism' in understanding narratives, legitimacy, and world politics; and it highlights some of the methodological and practical issues in researching everyday narratives. In this introductory article, we situate the Special Issue within a critique of constructivist methodology broadly conceived, conceptualise everyday sites of politics, and finally, provide an overview of the articles in the issue.

What is the effect of providing personally tailored budgetary information on public attitudes to tax and spending? We address this question with a survey experiment based on the annual tax summaries introduced by the UK tax authorities in 2014. By subtly manipulating the categories of state spending – in particular, the controversial category of 'welfare' – to invoke a sense of unfairness, we show how budget information in general and the United Kingdom's annual tax summaries in particular impact support for state spending. Though the stated aim of providing personalised tax receipts to income taxpayers is to enhance fiscal transparency, doing so may also damage support for state spending if the information provides a sense that existing redistribution is unfair. The article contributes to political science debates about public attitudes to tax and spending, the character and trade-offs of fiscal transparency, and the framing effects of welfare.