Suchergebnisse

This article takes as its starting point a central issue for the urban social sciences: comparison. Local government is a theme where much is singular, contingent and idiosyncratic, and international comparison reinforces this tendency towards diversity. Therefore, the capacity to generalize becomes a real issue. The central argument of this article is that, beyond any first‐level complexity, the organization of the urban services sector in European countries basically follows three major 'models'. These simplified forms represent ways of combining public policy principles with a market economy. As such, they may be read as specific versions of urban capitalism. All three 'models' are European in origin, and nowadays find themselves in competition. In order to establish the features of these models — simplified forms of more complex phenomena — it is necessary to introduce a historical reading of overall choices of institutional and policy architecture. It is necessary to trace the importance of firms and to study the momentum of crisis and tension, as these give an internal view of phenomena that are generally regarded as natural.Ce texte part d'un problème central pour les sciences sociales urbaines, celui de la comparaison. L'objet urbain pousse à la singularité; les comparaisons internationales renforcent cette tendance; se pose donc un vrai problème de généralisation. La thèse soutenue est qu'au‐delà de toute complexité de premier rang, constatée dans l'organisation de chaque service urbain dans les pays européens, ceux‐ci au fond ressortent de trois grands modèles. Ces formes simplifiées, ou modèles, représentent autant de manières de combiner des principes d'action publique à une économie de marché; on peut les lire comme autant de versions du capitalisme urbain. En étant tous les trois représentés en Europe ces 'modèles' se trouvent aujourd'hui en compétition. Pour parvenir à dégager ces propriétés modéliques, formes simplifiées de phénomènes plus complexes, il convient d'introduire une lecture historique des grands choix en matières d'architectures institutionnelles et politiques. Il faut accorder de l'importance aux firmes et suivre les moments de mise en tension; ils permettent de saisir ce qui semble naturel dans le fonctionnement ordinaire.

The termination of communist systems of political rule in Eastern Europe between 1989-91 gave rise to the widespread belief in anti-Castro circles that such endings and new beginnings were feasible in Cuba. This `model' based on `scenario building' has turned out not to be the case in the course of the past several decades. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the East European models (because there are a variety of systems in that area) did not materialize in Cuba. The limits of analogy in international affairs are revealed in the unique as well as universal characteristics of communist types of regimes. Adapted from the source document.

The termination of communist systems of political rule in Eastern Europe between 1989-91 gave rise to the widespread belief in anti-Castro circles that such endings and new beginnings were feasible in Cuba. This `model' based on `scenario building' has turned out not to be the case in the course of the past several decades. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the East European models (because there are a variety of systems in that area) did not materialize in Cuba. The limits of analogy in international affairs are revealed in the unique as well as universal characteristics of communist types of regimes.

AbstractIn the second half of the 1960s, the future of Europe began to be a subject of numerous scholarly conferences, books, and articles. In 1972, Pierre Hassner performed a signal service when he published the first comparative and analytical study of the principal work done in the West on the models of the evolution of the European system.1 This essay will attempt to present in a similar manner the East European prognoses of Europe's future.