Suchergebnisse

Originally published in 1983, this book locates the behavioural approach to the study of politics in its social science and historical context. The text reviews the findings in a number of fields - public opinion, electoral behaviour, political participation, policy outputs, political recruitment, political welfare and socialisation, among others. The book is comprehensive and when first published it was the first single-author study to integrate the diverse findings of many studies both from the UK and North America. It was particularly written for students on courses in political analysis, political methods, political sociology and political behaviour

The transformation of the understanding and implementation of environmental policy in modern Russia brings the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the training of specialists working in this field to the forefront. Civil society is actively involved in the decision-making process on environmental protection. As a unifying principle for politics and ecology, the public ecology that is still being formed in Russia has been chosen. It actively involves society in generating, solving and evaluating these decisions in the political, social and environmental spheres. In the Perm Region, there are frequent cases of integration of experts from the field of ecology and politics to initiate and make management decisions on the environmental agenda and within the framework of sustainable development. This expert community decided to join forces and develop a joint master program "Public Ecology and Public Policy". Graduates of the program will be able to work in state and local authorities responsible for the environmental situation. They will become versatile specialists and will influence management decision-making, justifying them in a reasoned manner. In addition, they will be able to apply their knowledge in the field of environmental consulting, marketing and communications, as well as journalism that reveals the environmental problems of modern society.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Introduction: What Political Science is . . . and Isn't -- A Christian Framework for Approaching Political Science -- Faithful Learning Illustrated: The Logic of Power and Attitudes Toward Risk -- Conclusion: "Dr. Horne, I Think I'm Interested in Going into Politics . . . -- Discussion Questions -- Series Afterword -- More on Faithful Learning in Academic Studies -- More from P& -- R on Political Studies -- More from P& -- R on Politics.

This book deals with the role and place of the general will in modern and contemporary political thought. This project is carried out at the crossroads of the history of ideas and political philosophy. It extensively develops historical and philosophical themes, showing modifications to the idea of the general will in the writings of thinkers who sometimes represent very distant epochs. The author tracks down the birth and the development of the idea of the general will in ancient, medieval

This book traces the development of political science from ancient influences such as Plato and Aristotle to modern political shapers such as Robert A. Dahl. It covers changes to the field in both thought and practice due to the rise and fall of political regimes, world wars, colonialism, and social media. The book also includes thorough examinations of international relations, systems of government, constitutions, domestic policy, public opinion, and administration. The book ends with brief biographies of important people in the field of political science that specifies their various contributions.

TWO STREAMS OF POLITICAL THOUGHT WERE PRESENT AT THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN NATION.ONE WAS NOTABLE FOR FRIENDSHIP,BROTHERHOOD,INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEITY AND DISTAIN FOR THE MATERIAL.A FOLLOWER WAS T.PAINE,AND ITS BASIS IS IN ROUSSEAU.THE DECLARATION AND ARTICLES EXPRESSED IT.THE SECOND WAS FOR SOCIAL ORDER,RATIONALITY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION BY HAMILTON AND MADISON.

AbstractThis article addresses Andrew Rehfeld's attempt to ensure a place for
political theory within political science, which he does partly by
showing how political theory fits into a defensible definition of
political science and partly by excluding much political theory from
the discipline in order to safeguard the rest. His account of what
the discipline should comprehend is overly narrow, however, and does
not serve the interests of the sorts of political theory he strongly
believes are worth doing. I argue instead that political science
must be defined by its subject matter alone, and that political
theory's contribution to this subject matter must be defended.