Suchergebnisse

A symposium on a book by Bevir & Rhodes (2003) Interpreting British Governance. Following an introduction by Alan Finlayson, Mark Bevir & Ron A. W. Rhodes summarize their work & list the five main advantages of their interpretive approach to British governance, eg, identification of important gaps in the Westminster model & decentraliztion of institutions from their role in fixing individual behavior. In "Interpretation, Truth and Investigation: Comments on Bevir and Rhodes," Keith Dowding argues that Bevir & Rhodes are ambiguous on the central question of truth & that their partial explanations for British governance through the interpretivist perspective may be misleading. In "Taking Ideas Seriously' in Explanatory Political Analysis," Colin Hay rejects the ideas that explanation & positivism & understanding & interpretation are synonymous. Bevir & Rhodes's conceptualization of explanation & understanding are problematic, so a form of post-positivist political analysis adapted from social constructivism is preferred. In "Meaning and Politics: Assessing Bevir and Rhodes," Finlayson examines Bevir & Rhodes's concepts of power, dilemma, & narrative & develops an alternative interpretive approach to British governance. In "Interpretation as Method, Explanation, & Critique: A Reply," Bevir & Rhodes defend their interpretive approach on philosophical grounds, but view the approach as insufficiently objective. They expand on issues of method, explanation, & critique in response to Dowding, Hay, & Finlayson. They believe their narrative on governance using the four traditions -- Tory, liberal, Whig, & socialist -- & the dilemmas faced are robust. 1 Table, 1 Figure, 72 References. M. Pflum

This paper concerns public funding of parties. Parteis receive public funds depending on their vote share. Funds finance electoral campaigns. Two cases are investigated. In the first, some voters are policy motivated and some are ?impressionable? ? their vote depends directly on campaign expenditures. In the second, campaigning is informative and all voters are policy motivated. Public funds increase policy convergence in both cases. The effect is larger, the more funding depends on vote shares. When campaigns are informative, there may be multiple euqilibria. Intuitively, a large party can stay large since it receives large funds.