In: Prpić, Katarina (2011) Science, the public, and social elites: how the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science. Public understanding of science, 20 (6). pp. 733-750. ISSN 0963-6625 (Print), 1361-6609 (Online)
This paper finds that the Croatian public's and the social elites' perceptions of science are a mixture of scientific and technological optimism, of the tendency to absolve science of social responsibility, of skepticism about the social effects of science, and of cognitive optimism and skepticism. However, perceptions differ significantly according to the different social roles and the wider value system of the observed groups.The survey data show some key similarities, as well as certain specificities in the configuration of the types of views of the four groups – the public, scientists, politicians and managers. The results suggest that the well-known typology of the four cultures reveals some of the ideologies of the key actors of scientific and technological policy. The greatest social, primarily educational and socio-spatial, differentiation of the perceptions of science was found in the general public.
Political scientists continue to describe judicial structure in terms of organization charts and formal rules. Attention is focused almost exclusively on the Supreme Court. The judiciary is described as outside the group struggle, above and apart from the accommodation process of interest groups. This procedure is inadequate. The judiciary should be viewed in terms of the larger political and social context. A political science of public law can be developed by studying the judiciary as a facet in the group struggle and by relating the activities of judges to that of other groups. E. Scott.
In: Canadian journal of economics and political science: the journal of the Canadian Political Science Association = Revue canadienne d'économique et de science politique, Band 12, Heft 4, S. 483-495
It is the intention in this paper to conduct an inquiry into the relations between general equilibrium analysis and public policy by the indirect method of examining the place of such analysis in the solution of a definite economic problem. The problem selected is the possibility of raising wages without raising prices. Traditional partial equilibrium theory made the solution of this problem a fairly simple one, but modern general equilibrium considerations, dynamic qualifications on these, and institutional changes in the organization of business and labour have opened up such areas of indeterminateness in the formation of prices that we may no longer trust the answers given by the simpler generalizations.In the development of ideas during this paper, the term "degree of monopoly" will be employed rather frequently. The term will be used in Professor Lerner's sense of the ratio between the excess of price over marginal cost and price itself. In terms of Figure 1, this is the ratio RP/MP. This definition has limitations but it is retained as the simplest to which analysis may be referred and sufficient for the particular purposes for which it is required here.The idea that the rise of wages in relation to prices may have consequences for the levels of employment and national income is, of course, based upon the Keynesian hypothesis that larger wage incomes in relation to national income as a whole tend to mean a lower level of savings, and the corollary that a lower level of net new investment will be needed to maintain a given level of employment and income where the wage share is higher. There is also some opinion that changes in the degree of monopoly during the business cycle are such as to aggravate the operation of the disequilibrating forces. For example, Dr. M. Kalecki in an article published in Econometrica in April, 1938, suggests that the Keynesian analysis respecting the relation between wages and prices requires emendation and expansion because it appears from his statistical and theoretical analysis that the degree of monopoly increases with recessions of the business cycle and decreases with its upward phase. If this be so, Dr. Kalecki points out that the cyclical redistribution of income carries with it the necessity of attaching a larger quantity of new investment to any given level of national income as the level of national income recedes, though this reasoning is qualified for effects of falling wages on the foreign balance.
A decade ago, very few political scientists had either the opportunity or the incentive to engage with the political public in a direct, unmediated way. Today, there is a dense and eclectic ecosystem of political science and international relations-focused blogs and online publications, where good work can easily find an audience through social media. There are multiple initiatives dedicated to supporting academic interventions in the public sphere, and virtually every political or cultural magazine of note now offers a robust online section featuring commentary and analysis in which political scientists are well represented. This has transformed publication for a broader public from something exotic to something utterly routine. I discuss how these changes have affected individual scholars, the field of political science, and the political world with which we are engaged.
AbstractThe paper shows how scientific research intended to identify and evaluate policy options incorporates social constructions of reality which make some assumptions appear plausible and others not. The point is not to argue the relativism of science, but rather to argue that there is a restricted set of social constructions, for example of the nature of the environment, broadly associated with different kinds of social groups. Good policy practice recognizes these plural rationalities.
In: PS: political science & politics, Band 33, Heft 1, S. 6-64
ISSN: 0030-8269, 1049-0965
Discusses subject matter and research methods of political science and describes ways in which political science research has aided policy makers nationally and internationally, brought benefits to humanity, and provided knowledge critical to other fields of study; 7 articles. Contents: Evaluating political science research: information for buyers and sellers, by Arthur Lupia; Strategies for preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution: scholarship for policy making, by Alexander L. George; Government formation and public policy, by Michael Laver; Political science and fundamental research, by Michael C. Munger; The danger of self-evident truths, by Elinor Ostrom; Contributions of survey research to political science, by Henry E. Brady; The contributions of international politics research to policy, by Randolph M. Siverson.
Social scientists have constructed elaborate theories involving policymakers as rational actors and purporting to predict and explain policy outcomes. In contrast, this provocative book paints a picture of policymakers who—coping with the uncertainty of constantly changing constraints—must simplify, taking shortcuts rather than surveying all of their options and pursuing carefully thought-out plans. Sharkansky draws on wide-ranging examples to illustrate the conditions that make simplification the necessary constituent of political life, as well as the various ways in which policymakers navigate the maze of possibilities they confront. While acknowledging the shortcomings of the approach, he demonstrates that, considered in context, simplifications may in fact be more rational and effective than traditional rational models of decisionmaking