Suchergebnisse

First, we present what is called the Theory of Psychological Preferences (altruism, rational reciprocity.) through, on one side, the list of axioms proposed by Sandbu (2008) for pure individual decisions and, on the other side, that of Segal and Sobel (2007) for strategical ones. Second, we characterize the potential relevance of such a theory to define a new "politicial economy" approach and we search to define the precise scope of this field of investigation in combining the micro'demands of the psychological preference theory with the standard macro'ones. Finally, we show that polycentered models seem to be the only framework within which individual psychological preference is an appropriate tool to study the collective impact of altruism, social loyalty, intrinsic reciprocity and so forth . ; Nous présentons ici, dans un premier temps, la théorie des préferences psychologiques à travers, d'une part, l'axiomatique proposée par Sandbu (2008) pour les décisions individuelles pures et, d'autre part, celle de Segal et Sobel (2007) pour les décisions stratégiques. Dans une seconde partie, nous caractérisons l'apport potentiel de cette littérature à la définition d'une nouvelle "économie politique" et nous cherchons à délimiter le champ pertinent d'investigation d'une telle approche qui combinerait à la fois les exigences "micro" que véhiculent les préférences psychologiques avec l'objet plus "macro" de l'économie politique (comprise comme la branche de la science économique qui étudie les conséquences de l'intervention d'un décideur public et les conditions optimales de l'action collective). Enfin, nous défendons la thèse selon laquelle l'étude de l'action collective au niveau particulier des "communautés" ou des systèmes dits "polycentriques" peut a priori profiter des résultats abondants produits par la Théorie des Préferences Psychologiques - tout autre niveau d'investigation semblant a contrario inadapté en l'état actuel des développements de cette théorie.

First, we present what is called the Theory of Psychological Preferences (altruism, rational reciprocity.) through, on one side, the list of axioms proposed by Sandbu (2008) for pure individual decisions and, on the other side, that of Segal and Sobel (2007) for strategical ones. Second, we characterize the potential relevance of such a theory to define a new "politicial economy" approach and we search to define the precise scope of this field of investigation in combining the micro'demands of the psychological preference theory with the standard macro'ones. Finally, we show that polycentered models seem to be the only framework within which individual psychological preference is an appropriate tool to study the collective impact of altruism, social loyalty, intrinsic reciprocity and so forth . ; Nous présentons ici, dans un premier temps, la théorie des préferences psychologiques à travers, d'une part, l'axiomatique proposée par Sandbu (2008) pour les décisions individuelles pures et, d'autre part, celle de Segal et Sobel (2007) pour les décisions stratégiques. Dans une seconde partie, nous caractérisons l'apport potentiel de cette littérature à la définition d'une nouvelle "économie politique" et nous cherchons à délimiter le champ pertinent d'investigation d'une telle approche qui combinerait à la fois les exigences "micro" que véhiculent les préférences psychologiques avec l'objet plus "macro" de l'économie politique (comprise comme la branche de la science économique qui étudie les conséquences de l'intervention d'un décideur public et les conditions optimales de l'action collective). Enfin, nous défendons la thèse selon laquelle l'étude de l'action collective au niveau particulier des "communautés" ou des systèmes dits "polycentriques" peut a priori profiter des résultats abondants produits par la Théorie des Préferences Psychologiques - tout autre niveau d'investigation semblant a contrario inadapté en l'état actuel des développements de cette théorie.

First, we present what is called the Theory of Psychological Preferences (altruism, rational reciprocity.) through, on one side, the list of axioms proposed by Sandbu (2008) for pure individual decisions and, on the other side, that of Segal and Sobel (2007) for strategical ones. Second, we characterize the potential relevance of such a theory to define a new "politicial economy" approach and we search to define the precise scope of this field of investigation in combining the micro'demands of the psychological preference theory with the standard macro'ones. Finally, we show that polycentered models seem to be the only framework within which individual psychological preference is an appropriate tool to study the collective impact of altruism, social loyalty, intrinsic reciprocity and so forth . ; Nous présentons ici, dans un premier temps, la théorie des préferences psychologiques à travers, d'une part, l'axiomatique proposée par Sandbu (2008) pour les décisions individuelles pures et, d'autre part, celle de Segal et Sobel (2007) pour les décisions stratégiques. Dans une seconde partie, nous caractérisons l'apport potentiel de cette littérature à la définition d'une nouvelle "économie politique" et nous cherchons à délimiter le champ pertinent d'investigation d'une telle approche qui combinerait à la fois les exigences "micro" que véhiculent les préférences psychologiques avec l'objet plus "macro" de l'économie politique (comprise comme la branche de la science économique qui étudie les conséquences de l'intervention d'un décideur public et les conditions optimales de l'action collective). Enfin, nous défendons la thèse selon laquelle l'étude de l'action collective au niveau particulier des "communautés" ou des systèmes dits "polycentriques" peut a priori profiter des résultats abondants produits par la Théorie des Préferences Psychologiques - tout autre niveau d'investigation semblant a contrario inadapté en l'état actuel des développements de cette théorie.

This article matters over the different ways in which the «juvenile political participation» has been studied arguing that social sciences domeneering discourse has operated naturalizing the political representation system under valuing other politicial expressions present among young people. In an intent to visualize these expressions, this article delivers an analysis of the discourses and practiceds of young people participants of the cultural and student collectives of the Province of Concepcion, Chile. This analysis helped to confirm that the young do not get too far from «the political thing», but from the idea of representative politics which —top their own judgement—contains the main characteristics of bureaucracy, electoral centralism and authoritarianism among other others. To their rejection to political representation system, young people propose new social-political practices defined by an equitative participation, an assembly system, self managing, pluralism and political culturalization. ; El presente artículo reflexiona sobre las distintas maneras en que se ha comprendido el fenómeno de la «participación política juvenil», argumentando que el discurso dominante de las ciencias sociales ha operado naturalizando el sistema de representación política y subvalorando otras expresiones políticas presentes en la juventud. En el intento por visualizar estas expresiones, el artículo brinda un análisis de los discursos y prácticas de cuatro jóvenes participantes de colectivos culturales y estudiantiles de la Provincia de Concepción, Chile. El análisis permitió constatar que los jóvenes no se alejan de «lo político» propiamente tal, sino de la concepción de la política representativa, la que al juicio de éstos, tiene como principales características la burocracia, la jerarquía, el centralismo electoral y el autoritarismo, entre otros. Ante el rechazo del sistema de representación política, los jóvenes proponen nuevas prácticas sociopolíticas definidas por la participación equitativa, por el asambleísmo, la ...

Une synthèse de la thèse accompagne ce document de 470 p. au début (p 1-21) ; The Government is involved in the revitalisation of areas In this context, it is important to understand how an area in the midst of industrialisation develops a strategy allowing it to build itself up on the best possible foundations. To analyse a situation, various parameters need to be taken into account, for example the past will influence the planning of the future. Using this hypothesis, three resources whereby those concerned use mechanisms proposed by politicial entities (Region, State, Europe) intersect. The study of the ship building industry of Saint Nazaire, focusing on the organisation of networks and devices to help in the restructuring process, has led to us following the pathway of this production system which benefits middle and small companies. But we cannot understand the construction of a manufacturing system locally if we do not subscribe to a more extended policy. Between the local and the global, are other regional scales. Between metallurgy and other business sectors, there are numerous pathways and 'passers by' who learn to work in partnership on joint projects. These projects have meant that those concerned learn to cooperate and work towards a common objective aimed at benefiting the development of an industrial sector in the area in question. Development relies on a shared common project supported by actions taken by influential persons working towards the evolution of the area. The work carried out locally can influence the direction taken by national and European programmes. One must understand to react and understand the industrial evolution of an area so as to perpetuate its development. ; Les nouvelles dynamiques de développement local questionnent les politiques publiques, dédiées à la construction des compétences d'un système productif territorial. A partir d'une patiente investigation, qui nous amène à construire la scénarisation d'une aventure territoriale d'une vingtaine d'années, nous avons ...

Une synthèse de la thèse accompagne ce document de 470 p. au début (p 1-21) ; The Government is involved in the revitalisation of areas In this context, it is important to understand how an area in the midst of industrialisation develops a strategy allowing it to build itself up on the best possible foundations. To analyse a situation, various parameters need to be taken into account, for example the past will influence the planning of the future. Using this hypothesis, three resources whereby those concerned use mechanisms proposed by politicial entities (Region, State, Europe) intersect. The study of the ship building industry of Saint Nazaire, focusing on the organisation of networks and devices to help in the restructuring process, has led to us following the pathway of this production system which benefits middle and small companies. But we cannot understand the construction of a manufacturing system locally if we do not subscribe to a more extended policy. Between the local and the global, are other regional scales. Between metallurgy and other business sectors, there are numerous pathways and 'passers by' who learn to work in partnership on joint projects. These projects have meant that those concerned learn to cooperate and work towards a common objective aimed at benefiting the development of an industrial sector in the area in question. Development relies on a shared common project supported by actions taken by influential persons working towards the evolution of the area. The work carried out locally can influence the direction taken by national and European programmes. One must understand to react and understand the industrial evolution of an area so as to perpetuate its development. ; Les nouvelles dynamiques de développement local questionnent les politiques publiques, dédiées à la construction des compétences d'un système productif territorial. A partir d'une patiente investigation, qui nous amène à construire la scénarisation d'une aventure territoriale d'une vingtaine d'années, nous avons recherché comment les acteurs d'un territoire, qu'on pourrait qualifier de " territoire menacé de perdre ", s'engagent collectivement dans une stratégie plus ou moins explicite de ''trajectoire pour gagner'' exprimée en terme de ''développement durable''. Pour ce faire, trois clefs de lecture de l'historiographie d'une performance locale (territoire, compétence, espace industriel) sont conjuguées avec l'analyse des systèmes d'acteurs (encastrements de leurs trajectoires dans différents projets) et leurs modes d'appropriation de dispositifs qui ne relèvent pas du local. L'étude de la construction du Génie Naval de Saint-Nazaire, autour de l'organisation des réseaux et des dispositifs qui l'aident à se structurer, nous fait suivre le cheminement de ce système productif, notamment, au bénéfice des PME. Mais, on ne peut comprendre la construction d'un système productif local, si on ne l'inscrit pas dans une dynamique territoriale plus large. Entre le local et le mondial, il y a l'intermédiation d'autres échelles territoriales. Entre la Métallurgie et les autres secteurs d'activités, il y a de nombreuses passerelles et de nombreux " passeurs " dans un territoire qui apprend des démarches partenariales, basées sur des projets collectifs. Ces projets développent progressivement une culture collective territoriale et des formes d'intervention qui opérationnalisent progressivement le contenu de la gouvernance territoriale industrielle. Pour se développer, les territoires ont besoin de la dimension d'un projet partagé, appuyé sur les réalités du vécu des hommes et de leurs activités. Le local n'est pas un terrain passif et peut inspirer les dispositifs nationaux et européens. Nos résultats apportent des clefs d'une lecture de la trajectoire industrielle d'un territoire.

 Last night, a friend informed me that my favorite retired Canadian military officer, Lt. General (ret) Michel Maisonneuve is going to speak at the Conservative Party of Canada's convention.  This gave me a case of deja vu, as the 2016 US campaign had dueling generals at the conventions--Michael (how many foreign payrolls am I on?) Flynn for Trump and the Republicans and John Allen for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.  I have been meaning to write about Michael Robinson's book, Dangerous Instrument, Politicial Polarization and US Civil-Military Relations, for some time,* but the CDSN Summer Institute and a mad dash to finish the Steve/Dave/Phil book got in the way, but this news has pushed Robinson's book to the front of my mind.* One of my sabbatical goals is to catch up and write about the latest civ-mil work (and some older stuff).  Robinson's book was at the top of the pile.  Now I am working on Jason Dempsey's book about whether the US Army was "Conservative" or partisan in the early 2000s. Robinson does an amazing job of taking a variety of surveys and survey experiments (where some respondents read or listen to one vignette/treatment and others get exposed to different ones to see what primes people) to assess a variety of dynamics surrounding the US military: what shapes people's views, what shapes their media consumption, what shapes media coverage, and ultimately what shapes the standing of the US military in the public.  Oh, and how thoroughly screwed the US military is.The basic idea is that there are different ways to politicize a military.  The military can politicize itself by directly getting engaged in politics or by doing things that resonate beyond the military.  But the book is really a story of affective politicization--that how people see the military depends not just on what the military is doing, but what the other actors in the system are doing that makes it appear as if the military is becoming closer or farther politically.  This is all very important because most modern militaries in most democracies seek to be non-partisan institutions--that they were taught the key to both civilian control of the military and relative autonomy was to stay out of politics.  Indeed, because most militaries are not seen as partisan, they tend to have higher popularity ratings--that most other institutions are seen as belonging to one side or another and thus at least a chunk of the political spectrum is pissed off.  I have delighted in our CDSN surveys showing that only academic folks have higher trust ratings than the military.In the US, there was an arms race between the Democrats and Republicans amassing endorsements from retired generals and admirals, as each sought to be seen as the party of national security.  This was bad for the military, as it may be that the public sees retired officers as the voices of the active service since the latter are largely restricting from speaking in a partisan fashion.  This culminated in Flynn chanting "Lock Her Up" at the 2016 convention, which is more than a smidge ironic or hypocritical given that Flynn was a far greater danger to releasing classified information than Clinton's email.  Anyhow, things got worse once Trump got into office as he kept referring to his generals, kept making partisan statements to and in front of the military (including announcing the Muslim ban at the Pentagon).Robinson, in his book, shows that views towards the military have become increasingly partisan--that views of the military now go up and down depending on who is president--that Republicans, traditionally strong supporters of the military, are less enthusiastic when a Dem is president. The key dynamic driving much of this is confirmation bias (woot?)--that partisans will notice only that which agrees with their preconceptions and discount that which does not agree.  As Americans become increasingly partisan--with their identities tied to parties, this gets worse, especially for those who consume only from a very biased portion of the media (you know who).  What I like about this book is that it uses a word I hate, polarization, quite well.  Polarization generally implies that all parties are spinning away from the center, when studies show that the GOP is becoming radicalized, but the Dems are mostly staying where they were, sliding a smidge to the left.  But what is abundantly true is that all sides are increasingly tied to their partisan id.  Robinson goes on to show that that consumption of Fox is not good, and so on.  And the military is utterly screwed because if they push back at, say, charges of wokeness, they only make things worse.  The results also show that despite all the talk of norms of civil-military relations, the public is not really aware of them, nor that concerned about them.  So, it is up to the politicians to refrain and for the military to ... hope (and hope is not a plan).  So, it is a great book, with terrific social science, important implications for civil-military relations, and, yeah, we are kind of fucked.   And now it applies to Canada, damn it.  The Conservatives are bringing Mr. Cancelled to their convention, imitating the GOP, so he can rail against the Liberals and the wokeness of the Canadian Armed Forces.  The Liberals have dipped into this as they had Andrew Leslie, another retired LTG, in a prominent place when they ran in 2015.  The key difference is that they were just trying to use his credibility and stature to buttress their own, they were not using him to attack the military, nor did he speak out that much in any way that was particularly controversial.  Maisonneuve, on the other hand, used  his Vimy speech and then a regular spot at a national paper, to blast the Liberals, the woke media, the military for daring to make itself more inclusive, and pretty much anyone else he felt spurned by [I am still waiting for some media outlet to note that Maisonneuve was part of the military's abuse of power crisis].  The Conservatives are embracing some of the GOP's efforts to mobilize populist resentment as they now apparently seek to tear down many Canadian institutions.  When I say this will endanger Canadian civil-military relations, I don't mean there will be a coup.  But it will mean that the public and politicians will view the military as a partisan actor, that appointments and decisions will be viewed through partisan lenses, and then the Canadian military will be fucked, because its efforts to defend itself as an inclusive institution, desperately needed during a personnel crisis, will be seen as partisan.  "Hey, we don't discriminate against x" will be seen by CPC partisans as being too woke. Which will make it harder to recruit and retain, deepening the spiral that may make it very hard to send a ship to the Pacific or sustain the commitment to Latvia.  In short, the Conservatives are starting a process that is going to be bad for the military, despite their bad faith assertions that they care more about the CAF than the Liberals do.  [No, Trudeau does not care much about the CAF, but the CPC does not either].So, here's a song that goes with all of this.