Suchergebnisse

Zunächst beleuchtet der Verfasser Institutionen als Gegenstand sozialwissenschaftlicher Gerechtigkeitsforschung. Anschließend wird das Konzept der lokalen und der globalen Gerechtigkeit erläutert. Im folgenden werden einige Befunde lokaler Gerechtigkeitsforschung referiert, deren gemeinsamer Fluchtpunkt darin besteht, daß sie allesamt auf einen bestimmten Typus von Implikationen hinauslaufen. Hier geht es um Rechtfertigungsunsicherheit und ihre praktische Bewältigung. Der Autor kommt zu dem Ergebnis, daß es erstens für nahezu jedes (lokale) Verteilungsproblem eine Mehrzahl vertretbarer, aber jeweils suboptimaler Lösungen gibt; und es scheint aussichtslos, unter diesen Alternativen eine definitiv beste, optimale Option zu identifizieren. Zweitens gibt es verschiedene interessenrational motivierte oder intrapsychisch induzierte Prämien auf die opportunistische (Um-)Deutung von Gerechtigkeits- und Angemessenheitsstandards.(ICE2)

"The paper outlines two future scenarios, one 'pessimistic', the other more 'optimistic'. The first assumes that definite limits to growth exist and that, to the extent that this is still possible, economic policies must be radically altered to prevent the collapse of our ecosystems ('global warming'). If this assessment were correct, then we would probably be doomed. For even if all understood the dangers, it would still seem to be extremely unlikely that the major world powers will exit the market economy, i.e. an economic system premised on perpetual growth, anytime soon. Because such a scenario, while possibly realistic, would be social scientifically sterile (why bother if the world is going bust anyway?), the second scenario construes a somewhat 'friendlier' outlook of the future, one in which technologies become available that render economic growth and ecological sustainability compatible. If this scenario came true, then where would the world be headed in the 21st century? This is the question I wish to pursue here, with special emphasis given to China's rise and its implications for Europe. During the past 27 years, China's economy exhibited an average annual growth of 9.6%. At this rate of growth, a country doubles its income every 7.5 years. That means a child born in China today grows up in a country that is 12 times richer than it was during the youth of his/ her parents. If this growth continues unabated, as economist believe it can for at least several more years, then China will overtake the US as the world's largest economy by 2020. At that point, China's per capita incomes would still be below the OECD average. But the world would already have witnessed the emergence of an economic giant of historically unprecedented proportions. And this giant would still have ample scope for further catching up. Given that China's population is more than double that of the whole West, a China that reached a level of development similar to that of an average OECD member would dwarf any single European economy and, eventually, surpass the economies of North America and Europe combined. This would not only shift the weights in the world economy, but sooner or later also those in world politics, in military strength, and, potentially, in the areas of science and (popular) culture as well. At the present point in time, nobody can say with certainty whether any of this will come true. But if it did, then it would mean nothing less than the end of an era that lasted for about 500 years: the era of uncontested European or, for that matter, Western supremacy. Since China is not the only newly emerging power (as is well known, India and Brazil are rapidly rising too now), such a development would seem to be all the more likely. Thus far, however, Europeans appear to be largely oblivious to it. Remarkably, this is true even of the continent's leading intellectual circles. They had better attend to the matter and prepare their publics." (author's abstract)

"The paper rejects the notion of 'multiple modernities' as both conceptually flawed and empirically unfounded. In line with the sociological tradition, it will argue that we should speak of modernity only in the singular. Modernity, according to this view, denotesa peculiar epoch in the history of human kind, originating in Europe and spreading from there to the rest of the world. We may well be tempted to succumb too quickly to ill-conceived generalizations of what are in fact often only particular, locally based experiences. But we should also not lose sight of the truly revolutionary character of the historical 'breakthrough' to modernity. The protagonists of the multiple modernities paradigm appear to be doing precisely this: their very terminology impliesa trivialization of what is common to 'the' modern condition. At the same time, it suggests an overrating of which ever diversities (may) exist in different parts of the world. The paper will identify four main conceptual flaws in the pertinent literature: 1. The proclivity to equate modernity with its polity. The proposed conception of modernity is thus too thin for capturing the complex social structure of modern society as a whole. 2. To the extent that a theory of modernity is proposed at all, this theory is a self proclaimed cultural theory. Such a theory may shed light on some of the historical roots and self-perceptions of modernity, but it does so at the cost of excluding any thorough analysis of institutions. 3. The conceptualization of inter-societal difference in civilizational terms is misleading because it rules out, almost by definition, the possibility that countries belonging to different civilizations may in certain respects have more in common with ones from other civilizations than with some of the members of their 'own'. 4. The account's notion of diversity is exceedingly vague - the nature and profundity of the differences that are said to exist between different modernities are nowhere discussed at adequate length. But we need to know them to assess their social theoretic significance. In addition to these conceptual flaws, there are also various empirical phenomena and trends that challenge key premises of the multiple modernities approach. None of this is to say there are no differences between different regions, countries, civilizations. Nor is it to suggest their insignificance. It is, however, to suggest that we be more precise and that we extend our analyses beyond the confines of culture and politics - at least if we want to say something meaningful about modernity or modern society at large. Rather than speaking of multiple modernities, a better alternative to accommodate existing differences might be a yet to be developed concept of 'varieties of modernity' - akin to (but naturally pitched at a higher level of abstraction than) the notion of 'varieties of capitalism' which is beginning to crystallize in the new political economy literature." (author's abstract)