Suchergebnisse

OttoWeininger (1880–1903) is a notorious figure in European history.1A Jewish intellectual of Vienna, Weininger committed suicide at the age of 23 after publishing a single book based on his doctoral dissertation,Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex and Character, 1903). The work was admired by some of the greatest intellects of our century—Franz Kafka, Ludwig Wittgenstein, James Joyce, Karl Kraus, August Strindberg. More recently, it has attained virtually legendary status among scholars as an exemplary text of European misogyny and antisemitism. WhileGeschlecht und Charakteris certainly unrivaled as a compendium of turn-of-the-century prejudices, stereotypes, and anxieties, it is not simply a deranged thinker's chronicle of personal nightmares. This fact has been obscured due to the failure of recent scholars to situate Weininger and his work in the intellectual and cultural contexts of fin-de-siècle Central Europe. This paper demonstrates thatGeschlecht und Charakteris an intensely personal analysis of intellectual, political, and cultural themes that were of central importance to contemporary Viennese intellectuals.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the development of science policy in Argentina, from its emergence almost four decades ago to its challenges in the current context. In contrast to the functional kind of analysis that has been usual in Latin America for a long time, the attempt is to develop a theoretical framework based on the relation ships among the most significant actors (the state, the scientific community, the university, and the business sector), both in social and institutional development. The process of institutional transformation as well as the most relevant aspects of the national/international context are also taken into account. In the concluding section some of the substantive problems that will undoubtedly form part of the debate on science policy in Argentina and in Latin America in the years to come are discussed.

This article examines the impact that the internationalization of jnance has had on the regulation of domestic securities markets in Japan and Britain. In particular, it seeks to explain the apparent incompatibility of two distinct trends: deregulation (and state retreat) on the one hand, and increased regulation and state involvement in markets on the other.Much of the literature about the efects of internationalization on domestic policymaking has drfjculty explaining these two distinct regulatory frends. First, there has been no uniform "competition in regulatory laxity." Second, the United States does not appear to have exerted hegemonic influence over outcomes. Finally, domestic‐level explanations which deny the importance of systemic‐level influences on domestic policy choices are unable to explain the similarity of policy choices undertaken by governments with very different regulatory traditions.I argue instead that regulatory reforms have been undertaken primarily for the benefit of a particular set of private economic actors—mobile consumers of financial services, including both holders of liquid investment capital and large multinational borrowers. Internationalization has systematically strengthened their influence over the policymaking process by making "exit" from one political marketplace to another a more realistic and more potent bargaining strategy than the alternative of exercising "voice."