The article brings up the basic issues of comparative public policy, a separate research orientation in contemporary political science. First, the principal works that have defined this research discipline are looked into. The contributions of two subdisciplines of contemporary political science -- public policy & political economy -- are highlighted. The second part of the article investigates the fundamental methodological issues, synthesized into two basic dilemmas: what should be understood under the term government activity, & how it is possible to measure this performance. The author is of the opinion that most works from the field of comparative public policy are largely devoted to the comparison of governments' financial activities, which are the easiest to measure due to a broad accessibility of the data on public expenditure, public sector growth, unemployment, etc. Referring to the Canadian author Louis Imbeau, the author stresses the need for a broader understanding of comparative public policy that would include those comparisons that do not exclusively rely on governments' financial activities. 2 Tables, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.
Education & breeding, like culture in general, are, in the broadest sense, universal human phenomena inseparably linked & interactive. Anthropology, generally speaking, is a holistic science of man, his nature, & culture, so its approach & findings are always current, even in the scientific pedagogic treatment of education & its application. Because of that, the notions "education & breeding" & "anthropology," as a science of man & culture, are first theoretically determined so they can both contextually & explicitly be deduced & their necessary dialectical connection & mutuality be ascertained. The second, applied part of this paper is about religious education (scientifically, religiologically based) as a school subject & studies in the context of democratic social & political changes in Croatia & their relation to catechism. Adapted from the source document.
The author gives a critical review of the perception of comparative politics in the programs of the Faculty of Political Science. The perception is based on the assumption that comparative politics is a subdiscipline of international politics. Contrary to this, the author claims that (1) comparative politics is not a subdiscipline of international politics but a separate discipline of political science in its own right that has gained academic legitimacy together with political theory & international & national politics; (2) both international & national politics can be the subject of comparative research; & (3) the methodology of research, not the subject matter, is essential for the definition of comparative politics. These premises are drawn from an outline of the theoretical & methodological evolution of this discipline & the account of its current state. The author uses these to highlight the academic & organizational problems of comparative politics in Croatia. 47 References. Adapted from the source document.
The purpose of this essay is to prove the connections among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, & that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition," but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis shows how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depends on the elements of the political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently, its role depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.
Haberle claims constitutional law is a comparative experiential science closely linked with political science with which it shares the research subject. The constitutional state has been going through a permanent process of changes; the central question is who is the prime mover of constitutional changes: constitutional/legal institutions, constitutional/legal science, & political science or public opinion & political culture of citizens? By analyzing the recent history of the changes of the German constitutions he suggests that all these factors contribute to constitutional changes. Nevertheless, as an expert for law & political science, who considers himself as belonging to the wider European scientific community, Haberle thinks that the decisive influences in constitutional changes stem from legal & political sciences & concludes: Sine qua (scientia) mortalium vita non regitur liberaliter (Without science, mortals do not command their life freely). Adapted from the source document.
The author describes James Buchanan's theory of political constitution & his individualist understanding of political science. On the basis of homo economicus, Buchanan deduced the normative elements of political science, ie, the proposals for the choice of political institutions. In his opinion, the choice of political institutions always contains the ethical dimension. The positive elements of political science are illustrated by means of the analyses of the behavior of political actors within the designated framework. The author shows how this type of radical individualism does not satisfy the standards of political science since, de facto, it does away with the political sphere. Adapted from the source document.
The author takes issue with the quasi-scientific ideological manifesto that M. Kasapovic presented to the political-science community in her "revisionist text," as she herself characterized it, entitled "Leaving the Plural? The End of Internal Colonisation of Croatian Political Science?" (2007). "Leaving the Plural?" is the introductory & pivotal text in a collection encompassing works by a group of political scientists, which proffers a peculiar view on "the history & state of Croatian political science." In the first part of this article, published in the 2009 issue of Annals of the Croatian Political Science Association, the author's minute analysis unequivocally demonstrated that M. Kasapovic's belligerent manifesto, which does not meet even the minimal professional standards, is an arrogant amalgam of inequity & incomprehension, as well as an implacable attack on the Faculty of Political Science, its professors & its entire history. Here in the second part of the article the author first provides a brief review of a text which is part of M. Kasapovic's recent scientific production, with the aim of showing that the failure to meet the requirements of standard political-science discourse in "Leaving the Plural?" was not an exception. In the final section, the author reflects on the meaning & purpose of the accusations & personal slander contained in M. Kasapovic's defamatory text "Drifting Duo" (2008). In his judgment, the latter text disregards the basic rules of academic communication & is in itself a barbarization of Croatian political science. Adapted from the source document.
The author analyzes the interpretations by Jean-Marie Guehenno & Helmut Willke of the end of the national state in the context of contemporary debates on globalization. The author thinks that both authors have come up with similar insights, particularly those regarding assessment of the functional role that may be analytically attributed to the national state in the present & the future. Although their observations coincide with the debates on globalization going on in political economy & political science, their conclusions are not in line with the special structure of political activity. Unlike their state/theoretical "Hegelianism" (Guehenno) & system theory functional definition of government activity (Willke), the author looks into the contemporary operation of the state from the legal/philosophical perspective. Adapted from the source document.
Has the new political science, which operates in the conditions of democracy, brought to light anything of political importance that the old political science at its best did not know at least as well? The new political science starts from the modern understanding of science, which holds that only scientific knowledge is genuine knowledge. Just as classical physics had to be superseded by nuclear physics so that the atomic age could come in via the atomic bomb, the old political science had to be superseded by a sort of nuclear political science. Serious criticism of the old political science is a waste of time; we know in advance that it could only have been a pseudo science, although perhaps including a few remarkably shrewd hunches. This is not to deny that the adherents of the new political science sometimes engage in criticism of the old, but they demonstrate a constitutional inability to understand the criticized doctrines on their own terms. The new political science deems that our political situation is entirely unprecedented, and that an unprecedented political science is called for. But it fails to see that an unprecedented political situation would be a situation of no political interest, i.e. not a political situation. Now, if the essential character of all political situations was grasped by the old political science, there seems to be no reason why it must be superseded by a new political science. While the old, Aristotelian political science was based on political experience, the new is based on scientific psychology. The Aristotelian political science views political things in the perspective of the citizen; since there is of necessity a variety of citizen perspectives, the political scientist or political philosopher must become an umpire. The new political science on the other hand looks at political things from without, in the perspective of the neutral observer. Based as it is on empirism, it must reject the results of political understanding and political experience as such, and since the political things are given to us in political understanding and political experience, the new political science cannot be helpful for the deeper understanding thereof. The break with political understanding of political things necessitates the making of a language different from the language used by political men. The new political science claims that only its own language is unambiguous and precise. Yet this claim is not warranted. The language of the new political science is not less vague, but more vague, than the language used in political life. In the crisis of the modern world, while Rome burns, one may say of it that it fiddles, but, unlike Nero, it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns. Adapted from the source document.
