Suchergebnisse

Scholarship in international law aims at addressing global forest governance comprehensively. This article reviews the recent contribution Global Forest Governance - Legal Concepts and Policy Trends by Rowena Maguire and puts it into the perspective of recent political and policy science research on global forests. While finding Maguire's volume being a very timely and valuable contribution to the interdisciplinary discussions on international forest governance, we identify some weaknesses which are mostly rooted in methodological critique and a lack of a systematic framework for analysis.

Comparative politics is the only one of the political science subdisciplines that is defined in methodological rather than substantive terms. Since, however, scientific enterprises are always and unavoidably comparative, any emphasis on comparison and comparative method is certainly less than helpful in attempts to grasp the meaning of the term "comparatie politics". According to general usage in political science, comparativists are engrossed in political similarities and differences between countries; this lexical definition, however, corresponds poorly with stipulative definitions embedded in the practice of research. For one thing, by performing important hypothesis-generating and similar tasks, studies of one case form a central and integrated feature of comparative politics. Furthermore, much comparative research moves on the levels of individuals and groups, and makes use of countries as contexts rather than units. As political science has matured to be a nomotetic discipline, aiming at the building of empirically falsifiable explanatory theory, the crossing of borders in space and time has become a necessity, and comparative politics is today much more than an isolated political science compartment only. References.

The first decade of the 21st century has brought with it two important breakthroughs in the study of comparative politics. The first one concerns the availability of data. Nowadays, access to a wide range of information sources for a large number of countries in the world can be gained without too much effort. The second one concerns the methodological achievements made in recent years. Today, sophisticated multi-level analyses can be conducted fairly easily. Among qualitatively oriented researchers, Charles Ragin has made a significant contribution by introducing the fs/QCA-technique into the field of political science. However, the growing amount of data & the new methods not only open up new possibilities for the researcher. The present article explicitly deals with the problems related to the use of multi-level analyses & fs/QCA in comparative political research. In addition, attention is drawn to the drawbacks of using survey data from heterogeneous settings. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a way of dealing scientifically with the problem of comparison among dynamically evolving units of analysis in social science, namely by using methods from theoretical, computational & mathematical biology & phylogeny (evolutionary tree) analysis. First, the standard political science & static method of comparative analysis is criticized. Second, some important aspects of the dynamic comparison are presented from its multidisciplinary & historic context, commenting on the compatibility with evolutionary institutional as well as universal Darwinian theoretical perspectives. Third, dynamic comparison is approached using first techniques from standard social science statistical software (SPSS) & then from molecular genetics (MEGA, Molecular Evolutionary Analysis). Examples of evolutionary tree analyses of the European nations are presented & discussed. Similarities & dissimilarities between social science & biological applications of the dynamic comparison techniques are discussed, emphasizing the importance of openness to new techniques & application of panel data for elaboration of new methods of dynamic comparative analyses in social sciences. 2 Tables, 9 Figures, 68 References. Adapted from the source document.

Framsida; Innehållsförteckning; Förord; I. Reformism och utopism?; II. Wigforss pragmatistiska position; III. Ett annat samhälle är möjligt att tänka sig; IV. Ett annat samhälle är möjligt att utforma; V. Ett annat samhälle är möjligt att skapa engagemang för; VI. Wigforss och socialdemokratins framtid; VII. Pragmaticism, reformism och utopism; Referenser; Baksida

The article argues that Aristotelian virtue ethics & deliberative democratic theory can beneficially be considered to have a shared normative structure. The review is conducted as a comparative idea analysis, through which the respective perspectives are reconstructed. The first reconstruction, that of the Aristotelian virtue ethics, is led by three dimensions of relevance to ethical theory. These dimensions are, although indirectly, also guiding the reconstruction of the second theory, i.e. the deliberative democratic theory. The conclusion we reach is that the theories, be it with different emphasis, generally share a common view in relation to all three of the aforementioned dimensions, as well as regarding the value of deliberation. They both have a dialectical or structured approach regarding ontological basics. Both of them also motivate their main values with intrinsic as well as instrumental reasons. In addition, they share a mainly particularistic conviction, as they believe that the values are determined through a deliberative process. The concluding remarks stress the need for further & ongoing discussions on the relationship between theories of ethics & theories of democracy. 33 References. Adapted from the source document.

The study outlined in the article has the goal of describe & explain the trend of increasing presidential character within the parliamentary system. The project consists of three parts: 1) a comparative quantitative analysis of European governments, 2) field studies of European governments, & 3) a normative evaluation of the empirical results. References. Adapted from the source document.

What is good politics? It is both a knowledge of philosophical, organizational and normative questions. It is about how and where the political science branch of the social science tree grows, of what political scientists really should do and how political science education should be conducted. By extension, it is also about which frames political order, power and social organization can best be analyzed within. There are big questions. Are there any good answers or just bad? Or could it even be that the question of what distinguishes good from bad politics leads to awkward enough paradigmatic, epistemological, and other difficult or insoluble problems that maybe we should refrain from imposing or even trying to answer it? Well, it would actually be pretty bad. Adapted from the source document.

Argues that because of its international status, the English speaking world has an overly dominant position in formulating theories, models and research problems, which the Swedish political science merely copies. Repeating studies and applying the same methods is hardly a sign of a mature and cumulative science. Swedish political science could offer much more by studying fields such as Nordic social democracy, Swedish criminal policy or Nordic far right parties with unique theories and methods. L. Pitkaniemi

Research on Europeanization clearly shows that membership in the European Union over time affects the national political systems of member states. Given Norway's extensive integration within the EU, it is relevant and important to assess whether and, if so, how the Norwegian political system, too, has changed as a result, and how these effects compare with the general patterns among EU member states. Exploring the Europeanization of Norway in a comparative perspective, the article maps the effects of European integration for four central power relationships in the Norwegian political system: national-supranational authority, executive-legislative-judicial authority, political-administrative authority and national-regional authority. It is demonstrated that integration within the EU to a large extent has had the same effects in Norway as in the member states of the EU, despite Norway's alternative form of affiliation: extensive delegation of power to the supranational level, strengthening of the government in relation to the parliament, an increasingly important role for national courts, expanded power and autonomy of the executive administration in relation to the political leadership, and some strengthening of the regions vis-a-vis the central government. Adapted from the source document.