Suchergebnisse

Straipsnyje Niccolò Machiavelli'o dorybės (virtú) ir respublikoniškos politikos sampratos analizuojamos Aristotelio dorybių etikos požiūriu. Machiavelli'o pilietinės dorybės akcentavimas bei respublikoniškos politikos idealų gynimas turi panašumų su Aristotelio politikos koncepcija. Atsispiriant nuo dviejų konkuruojančių Machiavelli'o interpretacijų (t. y. Kembridžo konteksto istorikų mokyklos ir Josepho V. Femia), straipsnyje teigiama, kad Machiavelli nutolsta nuo klasikinės aretē / virtus sampratos, tačiau išlieka konceptualus ryšys tarp Machiavelli'o respublikoniškos bendrojo gėrio sampratos ir Aristotelio praktinės filosofijos. Machiavelli'o modifikuota klasikinė virtus samprata ir respublikoniška retorika leidžia jo teorinę poziciją interpretuoti kaip protonacionalizmą. Sykiu straipsnyje teigiama, kad Machiavelli'o ciniški patarimai ir apibendrinimai gali iš dalies būti paaiškinti renesanso studia humanitatis edukacinės tradicijos, kurioje jis buvo išlavintas, ir brutalios Realpolitik neatitikimu.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: Machiavelli, Aristotelis, respublikoniška politika, virtú, dorybių etika, bendrasis gėris, studia humanitatis.Virtue and Politics: an Aristotelian Reading of Niccolò MachiavelliAndrius Bielskis
SummaryThe paper discusses Niccolò Machiavelli's conception of virtue (virtú) and republican politics from the point of view of Aristotelian virtue ethics. Machiavelli's emphasis on civic virtue and the support of republican politics bear similarity to Aristotle's conception of politics. Against two competing interpretations of Machiavelli's legacy (the Cambridge contextual historians school and Joseph V. Femia), this paper argues that while Machiavelli moves away from the classical conception of aretē / virtus, he also, at the same time, shares with an Aristotelian practical philosophy the concept of the republican common good. Machiavelli's modified conception of classical virtus and his republican rhetoric allows us to interpret his position as proto-nationalist. Finally, this paper argues that Machiavelli's cynical advice and observations can be partly explained by the gap between the Renaissance education of studia humanitatis and the ruthlessness of Realpolitik.Keywords: Machiavelli, Aristotle, republican politics, virtú, virtue ethics, common good, studia humanitatis.

While governments are facing new challenges in wicked issues solving and ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of country the traditional public governance models and techniques become ineffective. The analysis of OECD Public Governance Reviews shows that the main focus in public governance development remains the strategic vision and agility, promoting a whole-of-government approach, leadership and stewardship from the centre, institutional strength and networking, enabled participation, integrity and transparency. Meeting the challenges requires smart mode of governance enabling governments operate fruitfully tackling with the wicked issues by timely and flexible action in fastly changing conditions. Thus the aim of this article is to set the concept of smart public governance. According the results of analysis smart public governance is stakeholder participation and networking based activity when based on timely and integrated information and adequate to the conditions rational decisions are taken and an appropriate its implementation structures and processes, techniques and tools are chosen, capacities and resources are mobilized and developed seeking for sustainable public value creation. The key interconnected dimensions of smartness - empowered citizenship, collaborative interaction, strategic agility, horizontal management – must be integrated into the system of structures and processes and affect the ethos and culture. However the level of manifestation of each of these dimensions depends on the circumstances in each country and its government's capacities. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.13.3.8300 ; Sprendžiant visuomenėje ir ekonomikoje kylančiais sudėtingas problemas ir siekiant užtikrinti tvarų socialinį ir ekonominį valstybės vystymąsi, tradiciniais laikyti viešojo valdymo modeliai ir metodai tapo neveiksmingi. Straipsnyje aptariama viešojo valdymo modelio, kuris leistų sumaniai veikti dinaminėje aplinkoje sprendžiant kompleksines problemas, paieškos ir pagrindimas. Straipsnyje, ...

This article deals with the EU Structural and Regional Policies and their financing mechanisms in the EU Member States and Lithuania, as one of the Candidate Countires. Although EU is one of the most prosperous regions in the world, disparities between countries and regions remain visible. To address existing socio-economic disparities between regions, the EU has adopted its structural and regional policies, which, based on financial solidarity of its Member States, aim to promote competitiveness and employment by helping regions to generate sustainable development and adapt to new conditions on the labour market and to global competition. The EU has at its disposal Structural Funds through which it channels financial assistance: the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. Support channelled through these funds amount to one third of the European Union' Budget. In addition, support to four least prosperous Member States infrastructure development is being provided through the Cohesion Fund. The article makes an overview of the main principles of the operation of the Structural Funds and their role in economic development of Member States. The article also deals with three pre-accession instruments: SAPARD, ISPA and Economic and Social Cohesion, which correspond to the main areas of assistance provided through the Structural Funds and imply operational aspects similar to those used by the Structural Funds. In addition, the Article draws conclusions On the effectiveness of structural assistance in the previous years, which may be useful to consider while making transfers to Lithuania under pre-accession instruments and subsequently while programming and receiving transfers through the Structural Funds. The article also draws lessons from the management of Structural Funds and pre-accession facilities for the application in the management of public finances of Lithuania. ; Beveik nekyla abejonių, kad Lietuva jau 2004 metais taps Europos Sąjungos nare. Narystė, kuriai aktyviai rengiamasi, reikš, jog Europos Sąjungos teisės aktai taps privalomi ir mūsų šalyje. Lietuva, tapusi Europos Sąjungos nare, įgys ne tik prievolių, bet ir teisę naudotis ES biudžieto lėšomis, kurios yra perskirstomos mažiau išsivysčiusioms narėms arba regionams ir yra skirtos paspartinti ekonominį ir socialinį jų augimą. Pagrindinė šių lėšų dalis yra struktūriniai fondai, iš kurių yra finansuojamos regioninės ir struktūrinės programos Airijoje, Graikijoje, Ispanijoje, Portugalijoje, Pietų Italijoje, Rytų Vokietijoje ir kitose šalyse. Šio straipsnio tikslas-panagrinėti Europos Sąjungos regioninės-struktūrinės paramos politiką ir finansavimo šaltinius. Ypač dėmesys yra kreipiamas struktūrinių fondų paskirstymo mechanizmo analizei, kadangi jo pagrindai gali būti panaudoti kuriant efektyvų valstybės lėšų paskirstymo ir kontrolės mechanizmą.

The paper deals with the specific features of the construction of an international identity by the EU & Lithuania. We do this by comparing the narrative of "Normative Power Europe" to that of "Lithuania, the regional center." The term "Normative Power Europe," though in use for some two years, still has no clear-cut place in the studies of European integration. So in the paper we first try to explicate its content by drawing a contrast with the more familiar concept of "civil power." We show that the term is an attempt at a new conceptualization of a problem that has been on the agenda of constructivist international relations studies for some time already, namely, that of the power of ideas in international politics. "Normative Power Europe" is defined as a discursive practice, as a narrative shaping the EU as a unique political institution which, by realizing itself via free exchange of ideas & opinions, is capable of changing the "normalcy" perception in international relations. In the EU political discourse the identity of EU as a normative power is constructed via the contrast of EU/USA politics, with America conceived as Europe's "Other." Next, in analyzing Lithuania's foreign politics in the context of the EU New Neighborhood Policy, we draw the parallels in the narratives made use of in constructing the identities of EU & Lithuania. A brief examination of the narrative "Lithuania, the regional center" shows its similarity to the narrative of "Normative Power Europe." First, the "Normative Power Europe" & the "Lithuania, the regional center" are both discursive constructions of their international identity. Second, both narratives are promoting a normative model, based on similar values & principles. Third, in both narratives regionalization is held a major instrument in spreading the values conducive to the creation of a common identity. Finally, both narratives perceive the common regional identity as a major security guarantee. The conclusion is that the narrative of "Lithuania, the regional center" is merely a nationalist replica of the "Normative Power Europe," with some peculiarities to be explained by differences in historical context & Lithuania's specifics in domestic politics. These are mainly due to Lithuania's attempt at reconciling her nation state identity & the ambitions of an active actor of the EU Common Foreign & Security Policy. Adapted from the source document.

Theatre by its definition is a communal and social institution, representing as well as establishing certain socio-political functions. However, at the end of the 20th century there was a real sense, that "political theatre" as a form was thought to be dying (not to mention the notorious nature of the term political theatre in post-soviet space), and the ambition of theatre as cultural practise that inspires social change or at least some kind of active reflection was corrupt. As contemporary culture aspires to the condition of theatre and "society of spectacle," a lot of differences, especially those between theatre and reality, entertainment or social action, are constantly blurred, the meanings and locations of political need to be retraced and redrawn. When the real live dramas are staged on a daily basis it ofen seems irrelevant, even disrespectful or impossible to engage in the luxury of making theatre. If we agree, however, that personal is the political, we must note that quite a number of theatre artists declare that to engage with theatre today means to take a position which is inherently oppositional or political and doesn't need any further articulation. There is anger and sense of unarticulated frustration underlying many Lithuanian theatre productions, and that it can be read as a statement about the context in which politics and theatre might be currently played out. Therefore, the notion of political should not be so easily rejected as outdated or obsolete. [to full text]

Theatre by its definition is a communal and social institution, representing as well as establishing certain socio-political functions. However, at the end of the 20th century there was a real sense, that "political theatre" as a form was thought to be dying (not to mention the notorious nature of the term political theatre in post-soviet space), and the ambition of theatre as cultural practise that inspires social change or at least some kind of active reflection was corrupt. As contemporary culture aspires to the condition of theatre and "society of spectacle," a lot of differences, especially those between theatre and reality, entertainment or social action, are constantly blurred, the meanings and locations of political need to be retraced and redrawn. When the real live dramas are staged on a daily basis it ofen seems irrelevant, even disrespectful or impossible to engage in the luxury of making theatre. If we agree, however, that personal is the political, we must note that quite a number of theatre artists declare that to engage with theatre today means to take a position which is inherently oppositional or political and doesn't need any further articulation. There is anger and sense of unarticulated frustration underlying many Lithuanian theatre productions, and that it can be read as a statement about the context in which politics and theatre might be currently played out. Therefore, the notion of political should not be so easily rejected as outdated or obsolete. [to full text]

Theatre by its definition is a communal and social institution, representing as well as establishing certain socio-political functions. However, at the end of the 20th century there was a real sense, that "political theatre" as a form was thought to be dying (not to mention the notorious nature of the term political theatre in post-soviet space), and the ambition of theatre as cultural practise that inspires social change or at least some kind of active reflection was corrupt. As contemporary culture aspires to the condition of theatre and "society of spectacle," a lot of differences, especially those between theatre and reality, entertainment or social action, are constantly blurred, the meanings and locations of political need to be retraced and redrawn. When the real live dramas are staged on a daily basis it ofen seems irrelevant, even disrespectful or impossible to engage in the luxury of making theatre. If we agree, however, that personal is the political, we must note that quite a number of theatre artists declare that to engage with theatre today means to take a position which is inherently oppositional or political and doesn't need any further articulation. There is anger and sense of unarticulated frustration underlying many Lithuanian theatre productions, and that it can be read as a statement about the context in which politics and theatre might be currently played out. Therefore, the notion of political should not be so easily rejected as outdated or obsolete. [to full text]

The dissertation aimed to explore the concept of UBC governance and on the basis of theoretical and empirical research results develop a conceptual normative UBC governance model. Research methodology was based on the phenomenological and heuristic inquiry strategy and integration of action research and fieldwork research elements.The dissertation included the analysis of the theoretical framework of UBC governance, exploration of the best practices of UBC governance in foreign countries, examination of the case of UBC governance in Lithuania, and development of the conceptual normative model. It was concluded that the theoretical framework for UBC governance can be examined with regard to the evolution of New Public Management and New Public Governance doctrines, the shift from Conventional or Mode 1 to Corporative or Mode 2 approach, the knowledge creation models of the Triple Helix, the Quadruple Helix and the Quintuple Helix, network, knowledge and innovation management.University and business divide in Lithuania is caused by weak UBC traditions, lack of strategic management, lack of leadership and consolidating institution, and low level of cooperative and entrepreneurial culture.

While governments are facing new challenges in wicked issues solving and ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of country the traditional public governance models and techniques become ineffective. The analysis of OECD Public Governance Reviews shows that the main focus in public governance development remains the strategic vision and agility, promoting a whole-of-government approach, leadership and stewardship from the centre, institutional strength and networking, enabled participation, integrity and transparency. Meeting the challenges requires smart mode of governance enabling governments operate fruitfully tackling with the wicked issues by timely and flexible action in fastly changing conditions. Thus the aim of this article is to set the concept of smart public governance. According the results of analysis smart public governance is stakeholder participation and networking based activity when based on timely and integrated information and adequate to the conditions rational decisions are taken and an appropriate its implementation structures and processes, techniques and tools are chosen, capacities and resources are mobilized and developed seeking for sustainable public value creation. The key interconnected dimensions of smartness - empowered citizenship, collaborative interaction, strategic agility, horizontal management – must be integrated into the system of structures and processes and affect the ethos and culture. However the level of manifestation of each of these dimensions depends on the circumstances in each country and its government's capacities.

While governments are facing new challenges in wicked issues solving and ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of country the traditional public governance models and techniques become ineffective. The analysis of OECD Public Governance Reviews shows that the main focus in public governance development remains the strategic vision and agility, promoting a whole-of-government approach, leadership and stewardship from the centre, institutional strength and networking, enabled participation, integrity and transparency. Meeting the challenges requires smart mode of governance enabling governments operate fruitfully tackling with the wicked issues by timely and flexible action in fastly changing conditions. Thus the aim of this article is to set the concept of smart public governance. According the results of analysis smart public governance is stakeholder participation and networking based activity when based on timely and integrated information and adequate to the conditions rational decisions are taken and an appropriate its implementation structures and processes, techniques and tools are chosen, capacities and resources are mobilized and developed seeking for sustainable public value creation. The key interconnected dimensions of smartness - empowered citizenship, collaborative interaction, strategic agility, horizontal management – must be integrated into the system of structures and processes and affect the ethos and culture. However the level of manifestation of each of these dimensions depends on the circumstances in each country and its government's capacities.

While governments are facing new challenges in wicked issues solving and ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of country the traditional public governance models and techniques become ineffective. The analysis of OECD Public Governance Reviews shows that the main focus in public governance development remains the strategic vision and agility, promoting a whole-of-government approach, leadership and stewardship from the centre, institutional strength and networking, enabled participation, integrity and transparency. Meeting the challenges requires smart mode of governance enabling governments operate fruitfully tackling with the wicked issues by timely and flexible action in fastly changing conditions. Thus the aim of this article is to set the concept of smart public governance. According the results of analysis smart public governance is stakeholder participation and networking based activity when based on timely and integrated information and adequate to the conditions rational decisions are taken and an appropriate its implementation structures and processes, techniques and tools are chosen, capacities and resources are mobilized and developed seeking for sustainable public value creation. The key interconnected dimensions of smartness - empowered citizenship, collaborative interaction, strategic agility, horizontal management – must be integrated into the system of structures and processes and affect the ethos and culture. However the level of manifestation of each of these dimensions depends on the circumstances in each country and its government's capacities.

While governments are facing new challenges in wicked issues solving and ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of country the traditional public governance models and techniques become ineffective. The analysis of OECD Public Governance Reviews shows that the main focus in public governance development remains the strategic vision and agility, promoting a whole-of-government approach, leadership and stewardship from the centre, institutional strength and networking, enabled participation, integrity and transparency. Meeting the challenges requires smart mode of governance enabling governments operate fruitfully tackling with the wicked issues by timely and flexible action in fastly changing conditions. Thus the aim of this article is to set the concept of smart public governance. According the results of analysis smart public governance is stakeholder participation and networking based activity when based on timely and integrated information and adequate to the conditions rational decisions are taken and an appropriate its implementation structures and processes, techniques and tools are chosen, capacities and resources are mobilized and developed seeking for sustainable public value creation. The key interconnected dimensions of smartness - empowered citizenship, collaborative interaction, strategic agility, horizontal management – must be integrated into the system of structures and processes and affect the ethos and culture. However the level of manifestation of each of these dimensions depends on the circumstances in each country and its government's capacities.