Suchergebnisse

Political Geography is the leading journal for political geography and research on spatial dimensions of politics. Themes in the journal also include quantitative methodologies and spatial analyses based on GIS. ; Political Geography je vodeći časopis za političku geografiju i istraživanja o prostornim dimenzijama politike. Među temama koje se u časopisu objavljuju navedene su i kvantitativne metodologije i prostorne analize temeljene na GIS-u.

Javne su politike, kao višedimenzionalan i izrazito kompleksan fenomen, nužno multidisciplinaran predmet istraživanja. Cilj je rada istražiti što je specifično politološko znanje o javnim politikama, odnosno koji je jedinstveni doprinos politologa izučavanju i upravljanju javnim politikama u svrhe profiliranja te mlade politološke discipline u Jugoistočnoj Europi. Rad je nastao kao rezultat pregleda temeljnih udžbenika javnih politika u svijetu i regiji, te literature o metodologiji i pristupima istraživanju u društvenim znanostima i politologiji. Kreće se od određivanja što su javne politike i što je politički aspekt javnih politika. Propituju se pristupi istraživanju javnih politika (policy studije). Zatim se identificiraju vrste profesionalne uporabe tih istraživanja (policy analize). Ključna je pretpostavka kako je politologija prvenstveno kompetentna za analizu aktera stvaranja politika. Osnovni je nalaz da temelj profesionalnog profiliranja politologa u javnim politikama, s obzirom da jedini rabe istraživačku perspektivu usmjerenu na aktere, reprezentativnost i legitimnost stvaranja politika, može biti jedan oblik participatorne policy analize. ; Public policies, as a multi-dimensional and highly complex phenomenon, necessarily make a multidisciplinary research subject. The aim of this paper is to examine what is specific political science knowledge about public policy, and what is the unique contribution of political scientists to policy research and governance to enhance consolidating this young discipline in Southeastern Europe. This paper is a result of a review of policy textbooks in Southeastern Europe and worldwide, and literature on approaches and methodologies in social sciences and political science. It starts with determining public polices and their political aspect. Then it explores approaches of policy studies. Finally, it identifies types of professional policy research or policy analysis. The key assumption is that political science is primarily competent to analyze policy actors. The main finding of the paper is that the basis of political scientist professionalization in policy research, given that they are best in actor-centered research, and issues of representativeness and legitimacy of policy-making, can be a form of participatory policy analysis.

By reporting on some conflicts but not on others, and by representing conflicts they report on in particular ways, the media strongly influence the dynamics and outcomes of democratisation conflicts, and thus also shape the prospects of success of conflict parties. This paper explores the literature on media and conflict by focusing on the ways in which media frame inter-state and civil wars, institutionalised conflicts and social movements in western democracies, and conflicts in nondemocratic and democratising states. Much of the literature discusses the ways in which western media frame foreign conflicts and domestic election campaigns and policy debates, while there is considerably less focus on domestic conflicts in nonwestern settings, such as those that arise during and after transitions from nondemocratic rule. There are only limited attempts to draw parallels between the media coverage of disparate conflicts. In contrast, this study builds upon research findings in these related areas to draw lessons for empirical research of media framing of the contentious dimension of contemporary democratisation. This study concludes that the political context is the main factor that shapes the media framing of various forms of political conflict. Several dimensions of the political context matter in this respect, such as regime type, international (foreign) or domestic perspective, elite consensus or conflict, policy consensus or uncertainty, policy area, more or less institutionalised nature of the political conflict at stake, and the stage of democratisation. Also, the literature suggests that media framing strongly influences political outcomes and thus fosters or undermines democratic institutions in new democracies. .

Kako primjereno politologijski istražiti, prikazati i vrednovati povijest i sadašnje stanje politologije u Hrvatskoj? Tekst se fokusira na pomno razmatranje predmeta znanosti o politici – što je politika? – kao pretpostavke znanstveno primjerenog odgovora na dvojbu o stručnoj profilaciji studija i polaznika studija-politologa. A u tom sklopu, na smisao određenja politologije kao "znanosti o općenitosti" i politologa kao "stručnjaka za općenitost". Objašnjava se smisao, teorijski i kontekstualni, tih određenja (Prpić, 1969), vrednuju njegove pretpostavke, domašaji i ograničenja. Dramatična, teorijska i praktična, dvojba s kojom nas je Prpić suočio neprevladiva je u povijesnom kontekstu demokratske države, s obzirom na svojstvenu joj epohalnu ambivalenciju. Pri čemu se pokazuje nesuvislost dileme između množine i jednine: politička znanost u singularu sluškinja je političke moći, a političke znanosti tek metaznanstvena humanistička kritika postojećeg svijeta, što znači da znanost o politici ne valja ni u singularu ni u pluralu. Kada je znanstvena i stručna, tada je opasna po političku slobodu, kada je pak humanistička i ne-stručna tada je nemoćna i suvišna. Politolog je pak ili "stručnjak za posebnost", etički i vrijednosno neutralni sluga političke moći, ili pak pretenciozni misionar. Izlaz iz začaranog kruga: znanost o politici, u plodnoj i nezamjenjivoj dvojini metodički osloniti na novo načelo konstitucije zajednice, koje je imanentna kritika i prevladavanje moderne demokratske države i građanskog društva. Time se osnažuje i shvaćanje političke znanosti kao "znanosti o općenitosti". Znanost o općenitosti kao znanost o političkome tvori se u autonomiji (ali i komplementarnosti) spram znanosti o "općosti" (filozofije, etike i prava) i spram znanosti o posebnosti (posebnih sektora političkoga i društvenog bitka). Općenito je zbiljsko samo u odnosu spram općega, kao oposebljenje općega, i u odnosu spram posebnoga, kao poopćavanje posebnoga. Čime se suzbija opasnost od prividne općenitosti, kao bahate pretenzije ...

Članak propituje doprinos hrvatske politologije razvoju demokracije u Hrvatskoj. Fokus analize je pojam kulture o kojem autor govori u pet koraka. U prvom koraku je određena u modernom ključu, u drugom kao različita od prirode, a u trećemu kao različita od društva. U četvrtom se unutar politike razlikuje politička kultura od političke ekonomije i političkih ustanova, no u petom se pokazuje da je kultura nosivi dio politike i kao politics i kao policy i kao polity. Na temelju tih odredaba pokazuje se da je matica hrvatske politologije zaokupljena pretežito i u sve većoj mjeri izučavanjem upravo predmeta koji na prvi pogled pripadaju politici kao kulturi, i to u užem smislu političke kulture, te da se ona sama reproducira kao politička kultura. ; The article discusses the contribution of Croatian political science to the development of democracy in Croatia. The focus of the analysis is the concept of culture which author talks about in five steps. In the first step it is understood in the modern key, in the second step as different for nature and in the third as different from society. In the fourth step author differentiates political culture from political economy and political institutions, but in the fifth part there is an attempt to show culture as a fundamental part of politics, policy and polity. On the basis of these insights author shows that the matrix of Croatian political science is more and more devoted to scientific investigation of politics as culture as both study of political culture and as a source of development as politics as culture.

Tenth elections for the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia since the reestablishment of a multiparty system were held on March 16th, 2014, under a proportional electoral system. Electoral model essentially established in 2000 also included a single electoral district, closed party lists, five percent electoral threshold for non-minority parties and a use of D'Hondt formula for distribution of seats. Most important results of the March elections include: the lowest voter turnout and close to half of the votes won by the Serbian Progressive Party (which, in turn, gave them 63% of parliament members). Moreover, more than 80 percent of the seats was won by lists led by governing parties, i. e. Progressive or Socialist party. Elections were also not just a disaster for Democratic party, but also for Democratic Party of Serbia, Liberal Democratic Party, and United Regions of Serbia, which all lost seats in the National Assembly. Traditional success of the minority parties of most numerous national minorities (i.e. Hungarians, Bosniaks and Albanians) was noted. Also, for the first time, the parliament will convene without so-called sovereignists and opponents of European integration process. Finally, March elections were marked by a large number of squandered votes.

Despite the progress in all fields, modern society is facing the development of the means of political violence. Technological development also has its dangerous side. Many researches in the field of science are often carried out for the sake of military needs, and scientific researchers are often misused in military purpose. Political violence represents one of the greatest threats for the democratic development and human rights in contemporary society. The main goal of this paper is to analyze the position of political violence in contemporary society, particularly focusing on its covert use by the great powers, which is often justified by the struggle for democracy and achieving human rights. In that sense this paper is divided into two parts. The first part analyzes the globalization process, underling that this process has double face, whose negative side can significantly contribute to the spread of political violence. In the second part the author deals with the relations between policy and violence in contemporary society. The paper underlines the need for critical approach to political violence. This critical approach is crucial for understanding of political violence which is the first step in the fight against it. Political violence is not always negative and sometimes can have a positive role, especially when it comes to defensive war and combating terrorism. But the main problem here is that this can be misused to justify political violence in general. What is positive and what is the negative role of political violence often depends on the perspective of observation. Unfortunately, it seems that the privilege to enforce the standard today is reserved only for great powers, and they have become main judges who decide when political violence is to be approved of or not. This is the way in which a war becomes humanitarian interventions, protection of human rights, etc. That is why it is of great importance to encourage and initiate all actions in science which aim to understand and counter this complex phenomenon.

Vrijeme kada nisu postojali odnosi između politike i sporta, bilo da se radi o svakodnevnoj praksi ili znanstvenoistraživačkim pristupima povezanosti tih dvaju pojmova, ako ga je ikada i bilo, svakako je odavno iza nas. Usprkos tome danas se čini da se, osobito u znanstvenoistraživačkom radu na području nekadašnjih sportskih socijalističkih velesila, tim odnosima ne posvećuje odgovarajuća pozornost i da se oni često a priori negiraju i smatraju nevažnima. Zbog toga je glavni cilj ovoga članka potaknuti raspravu o važnosti i smislu istraživanja odnosa između politike i sporta gledano iz dvije perspektive – s obzirom na iskustva znanstvenika iz cijeloga svijeta te s obzirom na dosad provedena istraživanja znanstvenika iz bivše Jugoslavije. Stoga smo u ovome članku najprije teoretski odredili kontekst odnosa politike i sporta, a zatim smo analizom postojeće svjetske literature i radova znanstvenika s prostora bivše Jugoslavije analizirali međusobnu povezanost sporta i politike. Na temelju dobivenih rezultata, koji potvrđuju stalnu i čvrstu povezanost, ali ujedno i suviše apstraktno i paušalno razumijevanje odnosa sporta i politike, nudimo politološki relevantnu tipologiju odnosa između politike i sporta. Smatramo da razlike između odnosa politike kao borbe za vlast, institucionalne strukture te koncepta javnointeresnog djelovanja i sporta presudno utječu na buduća obilježja odnosa sporta i politike. ; Times when relations between politics and sports did not exist – be it in everyday practices or within scientific research – is definitely long gone, if they ever even existed. Nevertheless, it seems today that, especially within scientific research, these relations do not receive appropriate attention in the territories of former socialist sports superpowers, being a priori denied and considered as unimportant. That is why the key motive of this article is to initiate a discussion about the relevance of knowledge and research of the relations between politics and sport from two perspectives – the existing world-wide political science research experiences gained so far and already conducted researches in the territory of former Yugoslavia. In doing so, we first theoretically define the context of sports and politics, and then with the use of the literature review method analyse their mutual connectivity in the world and, more narrowly, within the work of the scientific community in the region of former Yugoslavia. Based on the gained conclusions which confirm a tight and constant, but also often abstract and flat-rate understood interplay between both analysed phenomena, a special typology for their in-depth and political-science-focused study is delivered. It is believed that distinctions between political, polity and policy approaches to sport decisively influence the mode of their future interplay.

Autor se pita: što se događa s umjetnošću kad elite shvate vrijednost umjetnosti, umjetnika i kritičara za svoje potrebe, to jest potrebe onih koji određuju što je politički korektno, odnosno što doprinosi njihovim političkim, društvenim i novčanim interesima. Pri tome je autor beskompromisan, ne štedi niti naručitelje, niti umjetnike, niti kritičare, niti publiku, niti struku povijesti umjetnosti, pa niti nespretne i ignorantske birokrate EU. No ta kritička oštrina koja je u potpunosti opravdana, iznesena je na maštovit i duhovit način, kao analiza i dobrodošla kritika ljudske gluposti, hipokrizije i taštine uopće. Autor zaključuje da je usprkos svih pritisaka i povijesnih vrludanja umjetnost kao otjelotvorenje duha najbolje što imamo, uz kreativnu znanost i ljubav, te prepoznaje vrlo maštovit, no ustvari i vrlo uvjerljiv i logičan vid umjetničkog stvaranja u kojem svako biće može biti (odnosno podsvjesno i jest) umjetnik-stvaratelj i umjetnik doživljavanja.

Autorica se bavi stanjem komparativne politike, a posljedično i političke znanosti uopće, u Hrvatskoj četvrt stoljeća nakon početka političke transformacije. Glavne uzroke njihova nezavidna statusa u međunarodnoj politološkoj zajednici vidi u selekcijskoj pristranosti u komparativnim istraživanjima i podrazvijenosti discipline. U prvom dijelu teksta općenito razmatra problem selekcijske pristranosti kao jedne od najčešćih i najpogubnijih grešaka u komparativnim istraživanjima. Prirodna pristranost očituje se u odabiru samo poznatih i dostupnih slučajeva, a neprirodna u "odabiru koji se provodi na ovisnoj varijabli", to jest u izboru samo onih slučajeva koji potvrđuju polazne hipoteze i isključivanju onih koji ih dovode u pitanje ili ih opovrgavaju. U drugom dijelu autorica ilustrira selekcijsku pristranost u transformacijskim istraživanjima i regionalnoj komparatistici na primjeru Hrvatske. Uzroke prirodne pristranosti vidi u tome što strani komparatisti ne poznaju jezik, povijest i politiku zemlje. Ona je umnogome posljedica large-nation biasa, to jest usredotočenosti istraživača na velike i moćne zemlje, i historiografskog biasa, to jest njihova oslanjanja na selektivne historiografske izvore podataka. Neprirodna pristranost izraz je metodoloških problema u dizajniranju komparativnih istraživanja, najčešće neopravdanog precjenjivanja jednih, a podcjenjivanja drugih varijabli, što znatno utječe na rezultate istraživanja. Naposljetku se osvrće na uzroke podrazvijenosti komparativne politike u Hrvatskoj. ; The author deals with the state of comparative politics in Croatia, and the state of political science more generally, a quarter of a century after the beginning of political transformation. Selective bias in comparative research and underdevelopment of the discipline are diagnosed as the main causes of its unimpressive status in the International community of political scientists. The first part of the article discusses in more general terms the problem of selective bias as one of the most widespread, but also most dangerous mistakes in comparative research. Natural bias is reflected in the choice of only known and available cases, while unnatural bias involves choice only of the cases that confirm the starting hypotheses and exclude those that question or repudiate the hypotheses. In the second part, the author illustrates the selective bias in research of political transformation and regional comparative politics using Croatia as an example. The main cause of natural bias has to do with the fact that many comparativists are unfamiliar with the language, history and politics of the country. This is largely due to large-nation bias and Reliance on selective historical data. Unnatural bias reflects methodological problems in designing research in comparative politics, most often in emphasizing one set of variables at the expense of another, which affects the results of research. In the concluding part, the article deals with the causes of underdevelopment of comparative politics in Croatia.