This book, the 20 Political Perspectives, allows readers to know and understanddifferent political views based on western philosophers and theorists, all of which have reflectedthoughts, beliefs, and political evolution that are in some ways similar and different. Theseelements, i.e., thoughts, beliefs, and political evolution, come from those well-known personsfrom very old times to this present period.Keywords : Thought, political perspective
It is an exciting time to consider changes in the field of comparative-historical sociology, as the discipline seeks to accommodate both old and new trends as well as the transforming spatial scales in which political power and social theory are increasingly embedded. Volume 20 of Political Power and Social Theory starts the ball rolling by showcasing articles that pursue similar themes
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
It is an exciting time to consider changes in the field of comparative-historical sociology, as the discipline seeks to accommodate both old and new trends as well as the transforming spatial scales in which political power and social theory are increasingly embedded. Volume 20 of "Political Power and Social Theory" starts the ball rolling by showcasing articles that pursue similar themes. The question of what is old and what is new hovers over most of the contributions, particularly the peer-reviewed chapters in parts I and II, which consider such long-standing socio-historical concerns as power structure theory, class-based collective action, and empire - but examine them through new conceptual, methodological, and historical lenses. This year's volume also offers a critical treatment of the spatial or territorial dynamics of state hegemony, class power, ideologies of governance, and citizenship - with the latter theme most well developed in debate over the new geographies of citizenship in the Scholarly Controversy Section as well as in part-II's guest-edited section on Empire and Colonialism.
The recent crackdown by the Chinese Communist Party government on the efforts of Chinese dissidents to organize the China New Democratic Party has raised a serious question among scholars: Why has the Chinese leadership been so reluctant to initiate democratic reforms? But another question is equally important: How has the Chinese political system been able to accommodate drastic socioeconomic changes? Although Chinese leaders from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin have strongly opposed the Western style of democracy, they have continuously adjusted the country's political system to prevent socioeconomic chaos from occurring, chaos that has troubled many former communist states & Third World countries. Here, the People's Republic of China's political incrementalism is explored, along with the explanation of how incremental political reforms have worked. It is argued that, although Chinese leaders have so far been successful in accommodating social changes through incrementalism, they are still uncertain about how to cope with increasing social demands for political reform & democratization. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.
Rather than addressing the dated debate of Iraq's 'artificiality', this article analyses the evolution of the term 'Iraq' and by extension the evolution in frames of self-definition in the years 1914-20. I use three key events (the anti-British jihad of 1914, the Najaf rebellion of 1918 and the rebellion of 1920) and examine the discourse that accompanied the events to analyse the changing categories of self-identification on the mid-Euphrates. A clearly discernible ontological evolution of 'Iraq' in the popular imagination is revealed thereby clarifying and explaining the rapid rise and adoption of Iraqi nationalism in the early twentieth century.
This essay is the first of a planned three-part series dealing with quantitative indicators of continuity and change in the political science discipline, focusing on the period since 1960. The series is inspired by the work of Somit and Tanenhaus (1967) which presented reputational rankings of both departments and individuals. For this series of essays, we created a unique database in which we recorded cumulative citation counts between 1960–2005 for all regular faculty members of U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions ca. 2002. In addition to identifying the department at which the individuals in this data set are presently employed, we have also collected information on their date of Ph.D. and the institution from which their Ph.D. was awarded. The authors would like to thank Robert Axelrod, Nathaniel Beck, Russell Dalton, James Fowler, Ronald Inglehart, Margaret Levi, Michael Lewis-Beck, Jean Oi, Dorothy Solinger, Don Wittman, and the anonymous reviewers of PS for their helpful feedback and corrections. We are also indebted to the bibliographic assistance of Clover Behrend-Gethard, and to the inspiration of Hans-Dieter Klingemann's pioneering work. Any errors presented in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors welcome corrections to the data that is presented in this series. Comments and corrections can be sent to Bgrofman@uci.edu.
Modern liberal democracies demand high and equal levels of political action. Unequal levels of political action between ideological groups may ultimately lead to biased policy. But to what extent do citizens' ideological preferences affect their likelihood to participate politically? And does the institutional environment moderate this relationship? From rivaling theories, the authors construct hypotheses regarding the relationship between ideological preferences and participation and those regarding the moderating effect of state institutions. They test them for six modes of political action—voting, contacting, campaigning, cooperating, persuading, and protesting—through multilevel analyses of 27 elections in 20 Western democracies. First, they find that citizens' ideological preferences are an important determinant political action. Second, they find that majoritarianism outperforms consensualism: In majoritarian systems, political action is more widespread and not less equal across the crucial factor of ideological preferences. The field should therefore reconsider Lijphart's conclusions about the superiority of consensualism.