Search results

Some ways in which PO analysis & PO as a variable fit into H. D. Lasswell's scheme. He proposes a series of Basic Data Surveys at each level of gov embracing all phases of the decision-making process & incorporating 7 variables for each phase: participants, perspectives, arenas, base values, strategies, outcomes, & effects. Variables affecting the use of PO in decision making include personal characteristics of decision makers & their inclinations to use PO, the stage in the decision-making process, status of the situation as a crisis or noncrisis. Alternative instit'al settings for the systematic study of PO & pol'al sci are discussed. U's act more as legitimators than innovators. Because their clientele desire immediate practical applications & because their bur'tic structures are decentralized, U's are often conservative. Lasswell proposes a revitalized professional assoc of pol'al sci'ts & the creation of advanced centers for pol'al sci that would provide context & intellectual integration. Though prospects for such instit's are not promising such centers will have to occur within the existing U framework in the foreseeable future. D. Davis (Modified).

THE AUTHOR CRITIQUES HARRY ECKSTEIN'S CLASSIC ESSAY "AUTHORITY PATTERNS: A STRUCTURAL BASIS FOR POLITICAL INQUIRY." IN THAT ESSAY, ECKSTEIN PROPOSES THAT THE SCOPE OF POLITICS CAN BE ASCERTAINED THROUGH A TAXONOMIC EXERCISE THAT HE LABELS "PROGRESSIVE DIFFERENTIATION." IN SO DOING, HE DELIMITS POLITICAL STUDY TO THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF AUTHORITY PATTERNS, WHICH HE DEFINES AS "THE SET OF ASYMMETRIC RELATIONS AMONG HIERARCHICALLY ORDERED MEMBERS OF A SOCIAL UNIT THAT INVOLVE THE DIRECTION OF THE UNIT." THIS TAXONOMY IS PROVOCATIVE BECAUSE IT RULES OUT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE'S DOMAIN STANDARD FARE CONCERNING EXCHANGE AMONG EQUALS (VIRTUALLY ALL OF ECONOMIC REASONING) AND EXCHANGE BETWEEN STATES (VIRTUALLY ALL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS). ECKSTEIN PROPOSES AN ALTERNATIVE DELIMITATION WITH FOUR SUBFIELDS -- POLITICAL THEORY, COMPARATIVE POLITICS, DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- AND DEFINES THEM IN SUCH A WAY AS TO GIVE COHERENCE TO THE POLITICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINE.

As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission.Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms. The next possible step in Russia may be an attempt to ensure the effectiveness of well-proven anti-corruption methods of the political system as a whole.In this article we propose a brief background to the evolution of the concept of political corruption in Western and Russian political and legal science, which entails the necessity of complex scientific legal synthesis on this issue, allows to discuss the existing methodological potential and creates new opportunities to build up appropriate systemic legislative models. ; As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission.Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms. The next possible step in Russia may be an attempt to ensure the effectiveness of well-proven anti-corruption methods of the political system as a whole.In this article we propose a brief background to the evolution of the concept of political corruption in Western and Russian political and legal science, which entails the necessity of complex scientific legal synthesis on this issue, allows to discuss the existing methodological potential and creates new opportunities to build up appropriate systemic legislative models.