Suchergebnisse

The author offers personal insight on Italian philosopher, Norberto Bobbio. He narrates his personal relationship with Bobbio, trying to describe the professor from a different perspective than those already offered by popular bibliographies & mainstream publications. The main focus is the important contribution that Bobbio offered in the political science arena. Tracing his biography & work from his contributions to juridical positivism, all the way to his public commitment as senator, the author offers an intimate relation of Bobbio's ideals & accomplishments as he shaped Italian political science, integrating it with philosophical elements. M. Williamson

The paper investigates the relationship between the classical liberal tradition & Daniel J. Elazar's neofederalism. In the opinion of this important political scientist of the 20th century, it is federalism that makes possible the protection of individual rights: without the constitutional framework of a pluralist federalism, democracy becomes centralized & can be a road to dictatorship. But the article is also an attempt to underline the limits of Elazar's theory & the inconsistency of his opposition between federal freedom & natural freedom. Moreover, it was not clear to Elazar how calling any form of political organization a "state" is a great obstacle to understanding the phenomenon of federalism & its polycentric order. Adapted from the source document.

A personal account of the author's initial attraction to the university, focusing on modern liberal thought and political science, as well as his long friendship with Bruno Leoni, founder of the journal Il Politico. The liberal thought of Guido De Ruggiero and Leoni is contrasted, noting Bruno's strong preference for individual responsibility. Leoni launched other publications, including the liberal review Library of Liberty. Leoni's academic background at the U of Turin (Italy) was influenced by Solari and Norberto Bobbio. It is suggested that future contributions to Il Politico reflect its liberal political science orientation, as suggested by a quote from Plato's Politics.. J. Sadler

In this essay the author chooses to develop the stimulating & intricate theme of liberal socialism from the perspective of cultural-political reviews. After a short reference to the forerunners, like John Stuart Mill & Leonard Hobhouse, the author illustrates the rebirth of a meeting proposal between liberalism & socialism in the middle of the twenties of the last century. With regard to this, beside Carlo Rosselli's notes, the contributions of Arturo Labriola & Guido De Ruggiero come out respectively in "Critica Sociale" & "La Rivoluzione Liberale." The author underlines the newness of these attitudes starting from Labriola's theories. Labriola thinks that the right time has come for the socialism to deliver its teaching from what he calls the "asiatic heritage," which exerted its influence on socialist doctrine by a choking & centralizing collectivism conditioning the individual to coercive institutions as "clan," "caste," "State," &, after 1917, the "one party system." The Italian scholar opposes to this heritage, belonging to the Eastern culture & society, the Western political tradition based on man's rights & freedom. Guido De Ruggiero's contribution -- though almost unknown to scholars -- originates from British political situation & develops in a meaning of liberty that trespasses on territory of equality creating the fundamental concept of his proposal: the "equality of opportunity." However the "equality of opportunity," needs a particular version of liberalism & socialism because it can be carried out only if liberalism is open to social action, a "new liberalism" as De Ruggiero calls it. By this way socialism cannot be Marxist & collectivist, because of freedom requirements. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

In a tribute to political scientist Franco Antonicelli, on the occasion of his centenary, Antonicelli's impact & influence on Norberto Bobbio are discussed: the Antonicelli notions of intransigence & tolerance in civil engagement are key. Also stressed is Antonicelli's significance as a political philosopher (he was repressed under the fascist regime in the 1930s), & his account of democracy as the outgrowth of conflict & tension, as well as his own antifascist, democratic activities. Antonicelli was a prominent figure in post-WWII Italian politics as well, & he serves as a noteworthy example of a political scientist who actually served in participatory, democratic politics. A. Siegel

In recent years, claims for autonomy & self-government have conditioned the politics of the so-called multinational democracies. In such democracies, national minorities have obtained one form or another of self-government thanks to various kinds of federal frameworks. Such important political processes have significantly contributed toward the renewed interest in federalism. In particular, a number of scholars have pointed out the need to formulate a specific variety of federalism to meet the needs of national minorities: asymmetric federalism. Thus, unlike scholars such as Carl Friedrich, Daniel Elazar, & Kenneth Wheare, who thought that traditional, symmetrical federal institutions could be used to manage nationalist claims thanks to their intrinsic capability of dealing with unity & diversity, many contemporary political scientists (eg, Alfred Stepan, Alain Gagnon, Ferran Requeio, Michael Burgess, & others) have analyzed the relationship between nationalism & federalism through the concept of asymmetric federalism. Focusing on the different dimensions of the concept & analyzing such a literature -- its results, suggestions, & limits, constitute the aim of this paper. 2 Tables, 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

The concept of desert is enjoying a revival in contemporary political philosophy. After a period in which this principle has been largely neglected & John Rawls's critique of it widely endorsed, the possibility that desert should be adopted within a theory of distributive justice is now defended by several writers on the subject. This article maps the ground for the adoption of desert as a principle of justice. After identifying a few main features that characterize the concept of desert in the abstract, the article identifies three main areas of contention in characterizing the principle. These concern the question of what constitutes the appropriate bases on which individuals become deserving; the issue of the relation between desert & responsibility; & the question of whether desert is a pre-institutional principle. By examining these thorny issues in the desert debate & the possible stances that may be taken on them, the article aims to make room for the possibility that a defensible principle of desert may be articulated & adopted within a theory of justice. Adapted from the source document.