Suchergebnisse

Project Hybrid regimes has democratization and non-democratic regimes as its focus. In recent years, research has shown how a number of authoritarian regimes have adopted a blend of democracy and authoritarianism rather than converting outright to full democracy. A country might for instance hold free elections but show little regard for the political and human rights of citizens. Project collaborators are operating on the premise that this type of blended or hybrid regime constitutes a distinct regime type alongside democracies, full authoritarian regimes, or totalitarian governments. They seek to explore the question of whether outside aid from full democracies can aid hybrid regimes in converting into full democracies. While the number of democratic governments around the world has increased in recent years, researchers have noted that hybrid regimes often resist efforts on the part of foreign democratic organizations to aid them toward a process of greater democratization. Citing the case of post-Soviet countries, and the Ukraine, the authors question the widely held perception by researchers that countries possessing a blend of democratic and authoritarian elements are at a transition point on the way to full democratization and that non-democratic elements of their governments merely constitute temporary setbacks. The authors, noting that heads of such regimes resist full democracy because they aren't prepared to accept challenges to their political power, argue for a new for the recognition of a new, lasting hybrid type of government characterized by elements of both democracy and authoritarianism. Adapted from the source document.

This paper presents a rational reconstruction of Kropotkin's view on human nature, institutional change and economic development. Kropotkin shows that mutual aid among animals as well as in human society is far more important than recognized by contemporary individualist interpretation of Darwinism on society. His major contribution to political economy is that he offers an endogenous model of why institutions exist. However, his biological determinism and ethical naturalism imply that he disregard historical context, which leads him to de facto apply the perspective of historical idealism. The rise of the modern state, for example, he explains by the spread of the "idea of the state" and not by the economic development. Adapted from the source document.

The teaching staff in Lund, having reviewed the above-stated guidelines developed in Goteborg, couldn't adopt the guidelines without further discussion. Among their concerns were the requirement that all articles be written in the same language, rather than permitting (as an example) a mix of Swedish and English articles, and the lack of any requirement that the articles be accepted for publication. They furthermore concluded that the development of guidelines could benefit from national oversight on the part of an organization such as the Statsvetenskapliga Forbundet. They also stated that data should be gathered on practices among faculty at institutions other than the one at Goteborg. Other potential pitfalls raised include the danger that articles either won't come together and fit as a whole or between them will serve to repeat the same argument. The author states his personal concern that criteria concerning what is expected of a doctoral candidate will be based on his compilation thesis rather than the other way around. Finally, the author raises the question as to why one should write a compilation thesis at all and under what circumstances it is to be preferred over a monograph. Any guidelines developed should not only aid in guarding against the above-mentioned pitfalls but should also include positive examples of what constitutes. Adapted from the source document.