Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

U članku se razmatraju empirijski potkrijepljeni nalazi o trendovima, pitanjima i perspektivama političke znanosti koji su izloženi u radovima unutar biblioteke Istraživačkog odbora br. 33 Međunarodnog udruženja za političku znanost (IPSA-e) pod naslovom "Svijet političke znanosti: razvoj discipline" te na konferenciji IPSA-e održanoj u Montrealu 2008. o "Novim teorijskim i regionalnim perspektivama političke znanosti". Jedno je od pitanja koje se razmatra u ovoj analizi snaga i slabosti političke znanosti kao discipline – je li ona uopće relevantna za svijet koji nas okružuje, i ako nije, zašto nije? Golim je okom vidljivo da u usporedbi s, primjerice, ekonomijom kao znanošću (Predsjednik Obama ima tri savjetodavna vijeća) politička znanost razmjerno manje zanima kreatore javnih politika, medije i javnost. Stoga se pitamo je li politička znanost u raskoraku sa svijetom, i ako jest, što se može s tim u vezi učiniti? ; This paper arises from the empirical evidence about trends, issues and perspectives in political science to be found in the International Political Science Association's (IPSA) Research Committee 33 book series entitled: The World of Political Science: Development of the Discipline and the papers presented at the 2008 Montreal Conference of the IPSA on New Theoretical and Regional Perspectives on International Political Science. One of the issues raised by this analysis of the discipline's strengths and weaknesses is the question of whether political science is relevant to the outside world and if not, why not? It is evident to the naked eye that in comparison with, say, economists (President Obama has three advisory councils), political science is of relatively little interest to policy-makers, the media and the public. We have to ask if political science is out of step with the world and, if so, what might be done about it?

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.

Rad se bavi fokusiranim studijama zemljopisno povezanih i zemljopisno nepovezanih zemalja, odnosno regionalnim i komparativnim regionalnim studijama. U prvom dijelu opisuju se uloga i razvoj te vrste studija kao poddiscipline komparativne politike. U drugom dijelu iznose se rezultati kvantitativne analize sadržaja tekstova objavljenih u časopisima kojima je Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu izdavač ili suizdavač. Predmet analize su regionalne studije Jugoistočne i Srednje Europe objavljene u tim časopisima. Cilj ovog istraživanja bio je utvrditi koje zemlje u svome okruženju hrvatski politolozi (i drugi autori koji u njima objavljuju na hrvatskom ili engleskom jeziku) najčešće istražuju te s kojim se zemljama Hrvatska najčešće komparira. Istraživanje je pokazalo da kada je riječ o istraživanju regije, politolozi sužavaju svoja istraživanja na zemlje bivše Jugoslavije. ; This article studies the focus studies of geographically connected and geographically not connected countries, i.e. regional and comparative regional studies. In the first part of the article, a description of the role and development of this type of studies as a subdiscipline of comparative politics is provided. In the second part, I present the results of quantitative analysis of the content of articles published in the academic journals published or co-published by the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb. The objects of analysis are regional studies of South-East Europe published in the journals. The main goal of this article is to determine which countries in their regional surroundings are researched the most by Croatian political scientists (and other authors who publish such articles in Croatian or English language in those journals), and which countries Croatia is most often compared to. This research has shown that, with regard to studies of the region, Croatian political scientists mostly focus on the countries of the former Yugoslavia.

U ovom prilogu u prijepisu je doneseno nekoliko dokumenata koji se odnose na osnivanje i djelovanje Odsjeka X, koji je krajem 1942. osnovan u sastavu Glavnog ravnateljstva za javni red i sigurnost Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova Nezavisne Države Hrvatske (NDH). Navedeni odsjek trebao je proučavati četnički pokret na području NDH, odnosno trebao je nastaviti voditi već prije započetu suradnju vlasti NDH s pojedinim četničkim odredima. Također se Odsjek X trebao baviti i partizanskim pokretom. Dokumenti u ovom prilogu donose podatke o osnivanju Odsjeka X, načinu njegova rada, ali prikazuju i kako su u tom odsjeku objasnili uzroke nastanka četničkog i partizanskog pokreta na području NDH. ; The paper contains transcripts of several documents pertaining to the establishment and activities of the Department X. The Department was established in late 1942 within the Main Directorate for Public Order and Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH). The task of the Department X was to gather intelligence information about Chetnik units and to establish contacts and cooperation with them. But the Department X also had a task to gather information about the Partisan movement. After the proclamation of the NDH, headed by the Ustasha regime, it initiated a campaign of state terror against the Serb population. The NDH labelled this population "Greek-Eastern" and later "Orthodox". This terror led to the uprising of Serbs that gradually developed into two mutually opposed movements – Chetniks, loyal to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and Partisans led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. The struggle between royalists and communists led Chetniks into cooperation with the Axis powers. During mid-1942 some Chetnik detachments operating in Bosnia made ceasefire agreements with the NDH authorities. The NDH did not give up from crushing the uprising by force, but along with negotiations with Chetniks it also initiated some other measures whose aim was to lessen the animosity and distrust of the Orthodox population toward the regime. Despite all this, the NDH regime was weak and it ultimately could not restore order neither with military force, nor with measures of peaceful pacification. The Department X duty was to take complete control and leadership over the already established contacts with Chetniks, as well as to investigate the possibility of further cooperation with them. Concerning the transcribed documents of the Department X in the paper they show how it commenced with its activities but they also contain analysis of the Department X about the causes that led to the appearance of the Chetnik (and the Partisan) movement on the NDH territory. The analysis is interesting because the Department X (in)directly concluded that the NDH regime itself, with its policy of terror against Serbs in 1941, bears the main responsibility for the uprising. Therefore, at least some elements in the higher NDH administration were aware that the regime's policy of state terror against the Serb population was ultimately counterproductive because it led to a large scale uprising of the Serb population. But, as mentioned, when the Department X reached such conclusion it was too late to rectify the consequences of the NDH policy during 1941. It should also be noted that analyses of the Department X were top secret documents intended only for the highest NDH officials.

The perceptions of science by the Croatian public & the political elite are a combination of scientific-technological optimism, the exemption of science from social responsibility, the skepticism regarding the speed of changes that science brings into people's lives, & a mixture of cognitive realism & optimism, & the reservations towards the cognitive possibilities of science. Also, the perceptions of science by the public & by the elite differ significantly. The public perceptions link modernism & traditionalism, confidence & a lack of it in the socially responsible role of science (& technology). Politicians nurture three different views of science. The first view implies both the beneficial & the neutral social role of science. The second view implies the reservations of the elite regarding the humanistic social role of science & its cognitive power, while the third way links the cognitive limitations of science & the skepticism regarding the way in which it changes the traditional way of life. The perception of science by the public depends on the social composition, while the politicians' views are significantly influenced by their political worldview & orientations & party allegiance. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Društvene mreže često služe kao alat političkim strankama i kandidatima za interakciju s potencijalnim glasačima. Opsežnim pregledom literature, identificirane su koristi upotrebe društvenih mreža, poput dobivanja publiciteta, širenja poruka i mobilizacije birača, ali i određeni nedostaci. Stoga se javlja potreba za praćenjem sadržaja koji se objavljuje te analizom utjecaja toga sadržaja na potencijalne birače. U ovome se radu analizira društvena mreža Facebook kao alat za korištenje u svrhu upravljanja odnosima s javnošću u političkim kampanjama. Metodološki pristup uključuje SWOT i TOWS analizu. SWOT se koristi za prepoznavanje ključnih čimbenika u vanjskome okruženju koji se identificiraju kao prilike ili prijetnje te čimbenika iz unutarnjega okruženja koji se mogu opisati kao prednosti ili slabosti korištenja Facebooka u ovu svrhu. SWOT analiza ne pokazuje različite sveze među čimbenicima, pa je razvijena matrica TOWS za identifikaciju strategija koje se mogu temeljiti na snagama, eliminaciji slabosti ili korištenju prilika. ; Social networks enable political parties and candidates interaction with potential voters. Extensive literature review indicated benefits of social networks usage, such as: gaining the publicity, spreading the message and mobilizing voters, but also some weaknesses. Therefore, there is a need to monitor the content being published on Facebook and to analyze the impact of this content on potential voters. This paper analyzes the social network Facebook as a tool for public relations management in political campaigns. The methodological approach includes SWOT and TOWS analysis. SWOT is used to identify key factors in an external environment that are identified as opportunities or threats and internal environment factors that can be described as the benefits or weaknesses of using Facebook for this purpose. The SWOT analysis does not show relation between the factors, thus TOWS matrix is developed to identify strategies based on the strengths, elimination of weaknesses or use of the opportunities.