Suchergebnisse

Includes index. ; Attributed to Jane Marcet. -- Cf. NUC pre-1956. ; Mode of access: Internet.

pt. 1. Food, health, and the body : political ecology of sustainability -- pt. 2. Capital's margins : the political ecology of the slum world -- pt. 3. Risk, certification, and the audit economy : political ecology of environmental governance -- pt. 4. War, militarism, and insurgency : political ecology of security -- pt. 5. Fuelling capitalism : energy scarcity and abundance -- pt. 6. Blue ecology : the political ecology of water -- pt. 7. Biopolitics and political ecology : genes, transgenes, and genomics.

Intro -- Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Politics and Money -- Chapter 2: What Are Political Action Committees? -- Chapter 3: Political Action Committees in History -- Chapter 4: PACs and Super PACs Today -- Chapter 5: Controversies and Debates -- Chapter 6: PACs, Super PACs, and You -- Chapter 7: Getting Involved -- Glossary -- For More Information -- Index -- Back Cover.

Die vorgelegte sozialwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studie beschreibt den Entwicklungsprozess zweier Methoden, nämlich der Delphi Methode und des political gaming. Beide Methoden wurden in den frühen 1950er Jahren an der RAND Corporation, einem der US Air Force nahe stehendem Think Tank in Kalifornien, entwickelt. Sie waren die ersten Versuche, Expertenwissen im Rahmen von sozialwissenschaftlichen Methoden systematisch für Zwecke der Vorhersage oder Simulation künftiger Ereignisse zu nutzen. Die Entwicklung der beiden Methoden wird unter Bezugnahme auf zwei im Rahmen der Studie entwickelte Konzepte analysiert, nämlich der epistemischen Rolle und den epistemischen Hoffnungen. Eine epistemische Rolle beschreibt das Bündel von Erwartungen, das die Entwickler der Methoden gegenüber dem/r Experten/in hatten. Als epistemische Hoffnungen hingegen werden die Erwartungen der Wissenschafter/in hinsichtlich Leistungsfähigkeit und Nützlichkeit ihrer Methoden in der Politikberatung bezeichnet.Der Vergleich der beiden Entwicklungsprozesse zeigt, dass die Methoden ungeachtet vieler Ähnlichkeiten auf unterschiedlichen Konzepten der epistemischen Rolle des Experten basieren. Während Delphi den/die Experten/in als Träger/in universellen Wissens begreift, ist für das political gaming Wissen immer relativ zur Kultur des/der Experten/in. Dieser Umstand wird durch Rückgriff auf die unterschiedlichen philosophischen Traditionen erklärt, in welchen die beteiligten Wissenschafter/innen akademisch sozialisiert wurden. Die vorrangig mit diesen Methoden verknüpfte epistemische Hoffnung war, dass sie die Sozialwissenschaften näher zu Problemen der Politik bringen würden. Dies würde zu einer höheren Rationalität politischer Entscheidungen führen. Dieser Hoffnung entsprach, dass sowohl innerhalb der Regierung wie auch des Militärs eine kritische Masse hochrangiger Beamter überzeugt waren, Sozialwissenschaften könnten wertvolle Beiträge zu politischen Entscheidungsprozessen leisten. ; This study describes the invention and early development of two social scientific methods, the Delphi method and political gaming. These methods have been developed in the early 1950s at the RAND Corporation, a think tank based in Santa Monica, California, which entertained close relations to the US Air Force. Historically, Delphi and political gaming were the first social scientific methods to systematically use expert opinions for the delineating scenarios of possible futures. Their development is analyzed with the use of two concepts introduced in this study, namely the concept of the epistemic role of the expert and the concept of epistemic hopes. An epistemic role is understood as the bundle of expectations held by the inventors of the methods toward the expert. Epistemic hopes, on the other hand, are defined as the expectations of the social scientists towards capacity, efficience, and usefulness of their methods when applied to policy problems. The comparison of the processes by which Delphi and political gaming were developed shows that although the two methods share several features, the epistemic role of the expert is conceived differently. Whereas Delphi conceives of the expert as carrier of universal knowledge, political gaming conceives of knowledge as being inherently culture-bound. This is explained by pointing out that the two groups of scientists who invented the method were trained in two different philosophical traditions. Also, the analysis shows ambivalent conceptions of the expert among the early Delphi studies. The authors held several epistemic hopes toward the impact of their methods on society. The hope was that the further scientific methodology extended into the realm of policy advice, the more rational a process of policy making would become. Both within the military and the government, a critical mass of high ranking officials was convinced that the social sciences could provide valuable contributions to political decision processes. ; Christian Dayé ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung der Verfasserin/des Verfassers ; Zsfassung in dt. und in engl. Sprache ; Graz, Univ., Diss., 2012 ; OeBB ; (VLID)224429

Criteria for determining whether certain behaviors constitute political corruption are presented, highlighting problems with traditional definitions. Five standards for identifying politically corrupt behavior are identified: a public official is involved; the individual violates public trust; the behavior damages public interest; the official's behavior is motivated by desire for personal or private gain & goes against standards of normal conduct; the act benefits an outside party by granting access to a good or service. In addition, Dennis F. Thompson's (1995) differentiation of individual & institutional corruption is discussed. Analysis of historical & contemporary examples of political corruption from public interest, public office, & market perspectives reveals problems with the aforementioned criteria. Guidelines for distinguishing political corruption from other political behaviors, eg, incompetence, are also provided. J. W. Parker

Political Correctness or Virtue Terror?Discussing the different meanings of the concept of political correctness, the author argues that it is a part of a profound change in culture within Western democracies that has led to a differentiation and deepening of human and fundamental rights. At the same time, it is shown that political correct-ness was adopted by the political right and used as a fight against this differentiation of human and fundamental rights in the Western liberal democracies, in order to defame them by linking the corre-sponding prohibitions of discrimination and equality measures with virtue terror.

This article proposes a framework to recast our thinking about political participation. The approach adopted insists on the role of collective actors and their agents-the political elites-in the democratic process and, by implication, in determining the amount and forms of individual political participation. The proposed framework builds on a simple model of representative government and introduces some major changes in the political context which have become ever more conspicuous in the course of the last 30 years, and which are substantially modifying the conditions for conventional (electoral) and unconventional political participation. Prominent among these changes are the increasing role of the media in politics, and the decline of party control over the voters. These changes tend to enhance both electoral and non-electoral forms of participation. Another set of contemporary institutional changes reduces the electoral accountability of political decision-makers, with expected consequences that are more ambiguous for both electoral and non-electoral participation. Adapted from the source document.