Suchergebnisse

In social sciences, a law can be defined as a finding of certain regularities in the interrelationships between social facts. These regularities observed, and then validated by the experiment cited, make it possible to propose laws, even if they are not necessarily universal and permanent in nature, as in some cases in physical science. In line with this approach and applying the principles of Claude Bernard's experimental method, we propose two of the demography laws of politics, the number law and the differential law. By means of the experiment referred to, their veracity can be established. The geography of the population can therefore provide useful lessons for political science. ; International audience In social sciences, laws result from interrelationships between social facts that can be frequently observed. These laws are not universal as they can be in physical sciences. However, once observed and experimented, regular events can lead to the recognition of laws. This is what we propose to do, following the principles of Claude Bernard's experimental method, in order to deal with two demogeographic laws of politics : the law of number and the law of differential. Hence we will see how useful for political science population geography can be. ; In social sciences, a law can be defined as a finding of certain regularities in the interrelationships between social facts. These regularities observed, and then validated by the experiment cited, make it possible to propose laws, even if they are not necessarily universal and permanent in nature, as in some cases in physical science. In line with this approach and applying the principles of Claude Bernard's experimental method, we propose two of the demography laws of politics, the number law and the differential law. By means of the experiment referred to, their veracity can be established. The geography of the population can therefore provide useful lessons for political science. ; Dans les sciences sociales, une loi peut se définir comme le constat de ...

International audience ; L'analyse des conditions d'émergence de la gouvernance, et notamment de la gouvernance urbaine, passe par un repérage des migrations du terme à travers les champs disciplinaires (philosophie, économie, sociologie, science politique, sciences de gestion etc.) et institutionnels (entreprises, organisations internationales, gouvernements nationaux, pouvoirs locaux) qui l'ont utilisé. Les procédures de gouvernance répondent, avec plus ou moins de pertinence, à de multiples enjeux de l'action publique en contexte urbain, qu'ils se posent en termes de légitimité, d'efficacité ou de durabilité. La référence à la gouvernance révèle certains non-dits des mutations urbaines et traduit de profonds remaniements des représentations idéologiques et des conventions territoriales (au sens de l'économie des conventions). C'est précisément parce qu'il possède un fort potentiel idéologique que le concept a eu la fortune scientifique et pratique qu'on lui connaît.

International audience ; L'analyse des conditions d'émergence de la gouvernance, et notamment de la gouvernance urbaine, passe par un repérage des migrations du terme à travers les champs disciplinaires (philosophie, économie, sociologie, science politique, sciences de gestion etc.) et institutionnels (entreprises, organisations internationales, gouvernements nationaux, pouvoirs locaux) qui l'ont utilisé. Les procédures de gouvernance répondent, avec plus ou moins de pertinence, à de multiples enjeux de l'action publique en contexte urbain, qu'ils se posent en termes de légitimité, d'efficacité ou de durabilité. La référence à la gouvernance révèle certains non-dits des mutations urbaines et traduit de profonds remaniements des représentations idéologiques et des conventions territoriales (au sens de l'économie des conventions). C'est précisément parce qu'il possède un fort potentiel idéologique que le concept a eu la fortune scientifique et pratique qu'on lui connaît.

Published: 28 April 2018 ; In an interdependent world, this sensation that not everyone who should be here is here, that our constituencies should be completed with other criteria of inclusion, that there may be some who have been illegitimately excluded from our group points to a triple inclusion―spatial, temporal and natural―that we should undertake: the inclusion of our neighbors, of our descendants and of the environment. None of these three "votes" enough. One of the principal challenges of contemporary democracies is how to reintroduce these subjects in our systems of representation and decision-making. If this hypothesis is correct, then we have a true democratic deficit and the habitual question about whether democracy is possible beyond the national state should be reformulated to ask instead whether democracy is possible without including those who are outside the national state, or more concretely, whether we can continue calling a political system a democracy if it does not internalize the interests of its contemporaries, does not anticipate the rights of future generations or does not recognize in some way the political subjectivity of nature.

From the publication of the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, the article reverted to the tendency of political science and, more broadly, of social sciences to adopt the naturalist view that the phenomena they deal with existed independently from the point of view of the members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the opposing positions of Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in RFSP issues 58 (4) and (5), are similar: they argue that it is possible to determine what is and is not political externally to specific practices. ; International audience Based on the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, this article reassesses the tendency in political science – and, more broadly, in the social sciences – to adopt the naturalistic view that the phenomena those sciences explore exist independently of the viewpoints of members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the contrasting positions taken by Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in issues 58 (4) and (5) of the RFSP, turn out to be similar : both posit that what is and is not political can be determined without reference to specific practices. ; From the publication of the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, the article reverted to the tendency of political science and, more broadly, of social sciences to adopt the naturalist view that the phenomena they deal with existed independently from the point of view of the members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the opposing positions of Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in RFSP issues 58 (4) and (5), are similar: they argue that it is possible to determine what is and is not political externally to specific practices. ; À partir de la publication de la traduction française d'un ouvrage de Peter Winch, l'article revient sur la tendance de la science politique et, plus largement, des sciences sociales à adopter le point de vue naturaliste selon lequel les phénomènes dont elles traitent existeraient indépendamment du ...

Özgürlük, mutluluk ve demokrasi Mill'i bir siyaset felsefecisi olarak değerlendirirken üzerinde durulması gereken anahtar kavramlardır. Mill, geleceğin en büyük sorunu olarak gördüğü özgürlüğü düşünce özgürlüğü, eylem özgürlüğü ve bir araya gelme özgürlüğü olmak üzere üç aşamada değerlendirmektedir. Düşünce özgürlüğü için hiçbir sınır koymayan Mill'e göre hiçbir düşünce susturulmamalıdır; zira her düşünce potansiyel olarak bir hakikat barındırmaktadır. Bireylerin her türlü eylem ve bir araya gelme özgürlükleri ise başkalarının refah ve huzuruna zarar verilmediği sürece bakidir. Mill yaşamın amacını mutluluk olarak görürken, mutluluğu birbiri ardına yaşanan hazlar şeklinde tanımlamaktan kaçınmaktadır. Onun ima ettiği mutluluk yalnızca bireyin kendi mutluluğu değil, eylemle ilgili olan herkesin mutluluğudur. Mill'e göre bir toplumun nasıl yönetileceği o toplumun karakteri ile doğrudan ilintilidir. Dolayısıyla Mill ideal bir yönetim şekli iddiasından ziyade toplumun yapısıyla uyumlu bir yönetim şeklinin aranması taraftarıdır. Mill'in siyaset felsefesinde toplumun tüm zorunlu ihtiyaçlarını bütünüyle karşılayacak tek yönetim tüm halkın katıldığı yönetimdir. Toplumun gelişim düzeyi ne kadar yüksekse demokratik yönetimin o toplum için uygunluğu da o derece yüksek olacaktır. Mill demokrasinin çoğunluğun tiranlığına dönüşmesinin engellenmesi gerektiğini savunurken doğru ve yanlış demokrasi arasında ayrım yapmaktadır. Eşit oy hakkı Mill'e göre yanlış bir demokrasi uygulamasıdır. Onun doğru demokrasisinde çoğunluk değil nitelik öncelenmekte ve bu yolla sistemin topluma ahlâkî ve entelektüel açıdan faydalı olması hedeflenmektedir. ; Liberty, happiness and democracy are the key terms of John Stuart Mill's political philosophy. Mill evaluates liberty, he accepts as the most important problem of the future, in three stages as freedom of thought, freedom of action and freedom of aggregation. According to Mill, any restriction of freedom of thought could not be accepted in any case because all kinds of thought include truth as potential. Freedom of action and freedom of aggregation could be restricted just by relying on harm principle that means someone is free in his action as soon as he does not harm other people. Mill, while accepting the aim of life as happiness, avoids describing happiness as the sum of pleasures. Happiness, according to Mill, is not the happiness of individuals but the happiness of everyone related with the action. The regime of a society is directly related with the character of society. Hence, Mill is in favor of searching for a regime compatible with the society rather than ideal regime for all societies. In political philosophy of Mill, the mere administration fulfils the necessary needs of society is the administration whole community participated. The higher developmental degree a society has, the compatibility of the democracy for the related society is higher, as well. Mill discriminates between true and false democracy. In true democracy of Mill, the important factor is not the selection of majority but the property. By this way, he aims to increase the moral and intellectual capacity of the society.

International audience ; In social sciences, laws result from interrelationships between social facts that can be frequently observed. These laws are not universal as they can be in physical sciences. However, once observed and experimented, regular events can lead to the recognition of laws. This is what we propose to do, following the principles of Claude Bernard's experimental method, in order to deal with two demogeographic laws of politics : the law of number and the law of differential. Hence we will see how useful for political science population geography can be. ; Dans les sciences sociales, une loi peut se définir comme le constat de certaines régularités dans les interrelations entre les faits sociaux. Ces régularités observées, puis validées par l'expérimentation invoquée, permettent de proposer des lois, même si ces dernières n'ont pas nécessairement un caractère universel et pérenne, comme parfois en science physique. Conformément à cette démarche et appliquant les principes de la méthode expérimentale de Claude Bernard, nous proposons deux des lois démogéographiques de la politique, la loi du nombre et la loi du différentiel. Par l'expérimentation invoquée, leur véracité peut être établie. La géographie de la population peut donc apporter des enseignements utiles à la science politique.

International audience ; In social sciences, laws result from interrelationships between social facts that can be frequently observed. These laws are not universal as they can be in physical sciences. However, once observed and experimented, regular events can lead to the recognition of laws. This is what we propose to do, following the principles of Claude Bernard's experimental method, in order to deal with two demogeographic laws of politics : the law of number and the law of differential. Hence we will see how useful for political science population geography can be. ; Dans les sciences sociales, une loi peut se définir comme le constat de certaines régularités dans les interrelations entre les faits sociaux. Ces régularités observées, puis validées par l'expérimentation invoquée, permettent de proposer des lois, même si ces dernières n'ont pas nécessairement un caractère universel et pérenne, comme parfois en science physique. Conformément à cette démarche et appliquant les principes de la méthode expérimentale de Claude Bernard, nous proposons deux des lois démogéographiques de la politique, la loi du nombre et la loi du différentiel. Par l'expérimentation invoquée, leur véracité peut être établie. La géographie de la population peut donc apporter des enseignements utiles à la science politique.

Les musées des sciences produisent des représentations de la science et de ses publics. Ils ont été invités à intervenir dans les nanotechnologies dans le cadre de programmes de politique publique d'ampleur mondiale censés développer ce domaine. Cet article examine la situation des musées des sciences européens. Il commence par examiner le cas d'un projet européen dans lequel étaient impliqués des musées des sciences travaillant sur les nanotechnologies. Cet exemple illustre un « impératif démocratique » auquel se retrouvent confrontés les musées des sciences européens, et qui implique une transformation de leur rôle public. Il offre une piste pour analyser l'évolution actuelle de la perspective de la communication scientifique européenne – qui passe d'« une compréhension de la science par le public » à « une compréhension scientifique du public » – et de la construction politique qu'implique cette évolution. ; Science museums, which produce representations of both science and the public, are being asked to become involved in nanotechnologies under public policies at the global scale that aim to develop this field. This article focuses the situation for science museums in Europe, beginning with a discussion on a European project that involved museums working on nanotechnologies. This example illustrates a "democratic imperative" that European museums are required to address, and which implies a major change in their public role. It puts forward a different approach to analyses of current shifts in perspectives on scientific communication in Europe – which is moving from "scientific understanding among the public" to "scientific understanding of the public" – and of the political construction these changes imply.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.

This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data. ; Cet article tente de discerner des relations de causalité entre démocratie et marché en distinguant contexte et préférences. Il s'agit de savoir si le développement du marché favorise le soutien à la démocratie et, inversement, si le développement de la démocratie est propice à l'adhésion des citoyens au marché. Ce travail s'appuie sur une nouvelle enquête, Life in Transition Survey, conduite en 2006 par la BERD dans 26 pays en transition. Notre stratégie d'identification repose sur l'exploitation de la situation particulière des zones-frontalières présentes au sein de l'enquête. Nos résultats suggèrent que la démocratie est favorable à la demande de marché tandis que le développement du marché ne conduit pas è une plus forte demande de démocratie. L'argument relativiste selon lequel la préférence pour la démocratie est un effet endogène du développement économique n'est donc pas validé par nos données.