Suchergebnisse

"Record linkage is used for preparing sampling frames, deduplication of lists and combining information on the same object from two different databases. If the identifiers of the same objects in two different databases have error free unique common identifiers like personal identification numbers (PID), record linkage is a simple file merge operation. If the identifiers contain errors, record linkage is a challenging task. In many applications, the files have widely different numbers of observations, for example a few thousand records of a sample survey and a few million records of an administrative database of social security numbers. Available software, privacy issues and future research topics are discussed." [author's abstract]

Klocek reviews 'Rethinking Liberal Equality from a 'Utopian' Point of View' by Andrew Levine.

This article considers the question of the good state -- and its normative model of foreign policy, internationalism -- from a cosmopolitan perspective. This cosmopolitan worldview pushes beyond anthropocentrism to anchor its account in the vulnerability of humanity both to the political dangers it poses to itself and to the cosmic arrangement of chance that enables complex life on earth. The essay first critiques both academic and policy defences of internationalism as a 'middle-ground' between realism and cosmopolitanism by putting its statist ontology into question -- that is, its fundamental account of human existence as bounded and determined by the nation-state. The perseverance of this underlying statist ontology creates tensions within academic defences of good international citizenship, which profess strongly cosmopolitan norms but whose moral philosophy, in accepting some practices of Realpolitik, is ethically insufficient. It then asserts an alternative ontology of (interdependent) human existence across borders and ecosystems, one that incorporates an ethically transformed state as a legal principle and an important means of cosmopolitan world order. Adapted from the source document.

For more than a quarter century, academic political philosophy has been dominated by strains of liberal theory shaped decisively by John Rawls's seminal investigations of distributive justice and political legitimacy. By intervening sympathetically but critically into several ongoing debates initiated by Rawls's work, Andrew Levine suggests the possibility of a supra-liberal egalitarian political philosophy that incorporates the insights of recent developments in liberal theory, while reinvigorating the political vision of the historical Left. Taking current discussions about justice, equality and political neutrality as his points of departure, Levine suggests the need to rethink mainstream liberal understandings of equality and related notions. The rethinking he proposes lends support, ultimately, for a vision of ideal social and political arrangements of a kind intimated, though only barely sketched, in the work of Rousseau and Marx-a vision that, not long ago, was widely endorsed, but that nowadays is almost everywhere regarded as hopelessly utopian.In marked opposition to the reigning consensus view, Levine argues that, after compelling liberal concerns are taken into consideration, the vision of ideal social and political arrangements which motivated generations of progressive thinkers and political actors is anything but utopian and remains as timely today as it ever was. This vision, Levine insists, is indispensable for curing contemporary liberalism of its tendency to acquiesce in a status quo that is ultimately at odds with democratic, egalitarian and even liberal values

Abstract The aim of this thesis is to suggest a model to assist in the ability to judge access by private persons to Information Technology, IT, and to Public Information Sys-tems, PIS. It has its starting point in the Swedish Government´s endeavour to turn Sweden into the first information society for all. When the available statistics con-cerning the access to a PC and the Internet in Swedish homes are studied it is easy to think that this vision may soon be realised. Of course, access to the technical equipment is a fundamental condition in order to be able to use the Public Informa-tion Systems, but unfortunately, is not the only one. A number of studies have shown that it is not possible to equate possession and use. A number of access models or frameworks designed to judge whether or not a person has access to the ICTs do exist. However, it is my opinion that there is a de-ficiency in these models; they do not start out from the individual user´s prerequi-sites, but rather judge the external conditions available for possible access. Assisted by four empirical studies, interviews and questionnaires, a number of ac-cess barriers experienced by the users have been identified. The studies show that in addition to the technological hindrances, a series of more elusive ones also exist originating from prevailing norms and values in the environment the user lives in. The barriers are categorised into five groups; to have, to be able, to will, to may and to dare. Together these notions form the User Centred Access Model, UCAM, which is suggested for use in charting and communicating the necessary considera-tions that must be taken into account in the development of Public Information Sys-tems. KeywordsLanguage ; PI - Publika Informationssystem

"Der Autor schlägt einen Perspektivwechsel von einer gesellschaftsorientierten Unternehmenslehre (Stakeholder-Ansätze) zu einer unternehmensorientierten Gesellschaftslehre vor, dem er sich durch eine Bezugnahme auf den soziologischen Neo-Institutionalismus annähert. Im Gegensatz zu einer Betrachtungsweise von bilateralen Beziehungen im Stakeholder-Ansatz wird das Interdependenzgefüge von unterschiedlichen (Typen von) Organisationen in organisationalen Feldern betrachtet. Auf der Grundlage einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Herangehensweise können Institutionalisierungsprozesse und die Rolle von institutionellen Entrepreneurs herausgearbeitet werden. Der Ansatz ermöglicht es 1. strategische Handlungsoptionen für Unternehmen zu bestimmen, 2. normative Anforderungen an Unternehmen zu formulieren und 3. die Bedeutung privater Steuerungsregimes zu unterstreichen." (Autorenreferat)

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the terms monism and pluralism have been injected into the discussion of political theory and doubly unfortunate that they have been put forward as rival theories between which we are expected to choose. Both words are in fact very general, both are capable of many meanings and both have about them the connotations of centuries of philosophical dispute. And yet the one clear lesson from these disputes is that both monism and pluralism are inescapable aspects of our world and as such can neither of them be neglected. An effort to set the two in opposition, to picture them as incompatible, and to force a choice between them is surely wasted. The truth is that monism and pluralism are not theories but points of view or modes of attack, and any reasonable political theory will have to take account of both and both will have to be interpreted in such a way that they can be joined in one theory. It is not the purpose of this paper to undertake so large a task as this final reconciliation; but merely to state as exactly as may be what is connoted by such phrases as "a monistic theory of the state" and "a pluralistic theory of the state," in order that the different points of view may be made as clear as possible and may be compared.By political monism I understand a theory which holds that the state is ultimately a single indivisible authority, not subject to any other authority and therefore able itself to fix the limits and the content of the obligations to which it gives rise.

This article has three main sections. In section 1, I discuss what identity politics is and what are its theoretical presuppositions. I also talk about the nature of the political action in identity politics, and about its limits. In section 2, I present my views on Marxist politics, which is centered on the theory and the politics of class, combined with the class-theory and class-politics of anti-oppression. I unpack what I consider are the Marxist notions of 'the common ground' and of 'the majority', as important components of Marxist politics. The majority, in the Marxist sense, are those who are objectively subjected to class-exploitation. And in terms of the common ground for politics, there are two aspects: a) the majority of people experience one common fate, i.e. they are exploited, and b) this exploited majority are subjected to one or more of the many mechanisms of oppression (race, gender, caste, etc.), all of which represent one experience: attack on democratic rights (or the experience of 'tyranny', in Lenin's sense). In the final section, I conclude the article and draw some implications of my arguments.