Suchergebnisse

Siyasal sistemler ve rejimler tartışması, Platon'dan Rawls'a kadar sürmüştür. Bu süreçte ideal devlet düzeni arayışlarında, meşruiyetini halk iradesine dayandıran demokrasi modeli tek geçerli sistem olarak modernitenin bir göstergesi şeklinde kabul edilmiştir. Siyasal iktidarın kuvvetler arasındaki dağılımı veya sınırlandırılması anayasalarda düzenlenmiştir. Demokratik ülkelerde Parlamenter Sistem, Başkanlık Sistemi ve Yarı Başkanlık Sistemi olmak üzere üç temel hükümet sistemi bulunmaktadır. Parlamentonun varlığı demokrasi için bir garanti olmadığı için demokrasi, parlamenter sistem olmaksızın da var olabileceği gibi; parlamenter sistem de demokrasi olmaksızın var olabilir. Dolayısıyla hükümet biçimi ile demokrasi veya hukuk devleti arasında doğrudan bir ilişki veya orantı bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada iyimser bir perspektiften bu iddia savunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'de sürekli tartışılan başkanlık sisteminin gerekliliği ve uygulanabilirliğini sorgulamak ve sisteme yöneltilen bazı eleştirilerin ve çekincelerin daha iyi anlaşılmasını sağlamaktır. Bu bağlamda literatür taraması yapılarak başkanlık sisteminin avantajları ekseninde, gerek parlamenter sistemin dezavantajları gerekse başkanlık sisteminin olumlu yönleri karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca çeşitli yazarların görüşlerine yer verilmiş ve hükümet sistemlerinin kavramsal boyutta analizi yapılarak tarihsel süreç içerisinde ülke örnekleri ile kıyaslama yapılmıştır. Çalışma üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde öncelikle başkanlık sisteminin gerekliliği üzerinde durulmuştur. İkinci bölümde başkanlık sisteminin ülkemizde uygulanabilirliği detaylı olarak ele alınmıştır. Üçüncü bölümde ise sisteme karşı yöneltilen eleştiri ve çekincelere yer verilmiştir. ; Political systems and regimes discussion lasted from Plato to Rawls. In this discussion process, the democracy model which is universally the only valid regime of all systems basing its legitimacy upon the people's will has been recognized as an indication of modernity in search of the ideal state order. The distribution or limiting of the power of government among the political powers is regulated by the constitutions of the countries. In democratic countries, there are three basic systems of government including parliamentary system, presidential system and semi-presidential system. Democracy can exist without parliamentary system and parliamentary system, in contrast, can exist without democracy just because the existence of Parliament does not guarantee democracy. Therefore, there is no direct relationship or proportion between the system of government and democracy or the state of law. This paper aims to defend these claims from an optimistic perspective. The main purpose of this study is to question the necessity and applicability of the presidential system which has been continually discussed in Turkey and provide a better understanding of the criticisms of the presidential system and some reservations about it. In this context, in the framework of the advantages of the presidential system, both the disadvantages of the parliamentary system and the positive aspects of the presidential system have been examined by making a literature review as well as making a comparison with the other countries historically and systems of government. Moreover, this paper also contains about the views of the various authors by making an analysis in the conceptual dimension. This work consists of three parts: the first section primarily focuses on the necessity of the presidential system. In the second part, the applicability of the presidential system in our country is considered in detail. The criticisms of the presidential system and some reservations against it are given in the third part.

In this article the author reviews the essence of social justice within the framework of sociological discourse. The importance of the social justice is outlined since it stands out for determining reform activities and social policy of the state as a social superstructure. The author states four basic concepts of social justice (egalitarian, utilitarian, Rawls concept and the market concepts) and analyzes each of them in the context of their possible use in Ukraine. The main focus of the article is on the Social Justice index, as newly invented social indices, which has been developed in the European Union and is updated annually by institutions of EU. The comparative analysis of countries' rankings in terms of social justice for 2014 and 2015 uncover changes that are discusses in the paper. It is noted that with every year the gap between the successful Nordic countries and those countries of the southern EU part that are still in the post-crisis phase is increasing. However, at the same time, in most countries of the EU the social justice index stays on the acceptable and a high level over the past years, and this level does not have the tendency to a deterioration. The author also examines possibilities of applying the Social Justice Index, and indices that compile it, in Ukraine. Ukraine is also analyzed in frame of the Index of Human Development of the United Nations, as another example of social indexes. ; В статье определена сущность социальной справедливости в рамках социологического дискурса. Отмечается, что социальная справедливость выступает как определяющая детерминанта преобразовательной деятельности, а также социальной политики государства как общественной надстройки. Автором рассматриваются четыре основные концепции социальной справедливости (эгалитарная, утилитаристская, роулсианская и рыночная), которые также проанализированы в контексте их возможного применения в Украине. Исследовано значение социальных индексов. В частности, рассмотрен Индекс социальной справедливости, который был разработан в Европейском Союзе и ежегодно обновляется евроинституциями. Определены общие тенденции изменения уровня социальной справедливости в странах ЕС. В рамках статьи проанализированы и оценены возможности применения Индекса социальной справедливости и его подиндексов в Украине. Также Украина анализируется с точки зрения Индекса человеческого развития ООН, как социального индекса. ; У даній статті розглядається сутність соціальної справедливості в рамках соціолог ічного дискурсу. Зазначається, що соціальна справедливість виступає як визначальна детермінанта перетворювальної діяльності, а також соціальної політики держави. Автором розглядаються чотири основні концепції соціальної справедливост і (егалітарна, утилітарна, роулсіанська та ринкова) та кожна з них проаналі- зована в контексті їх можливого використання в Україні. Основна увага в статті сфокусована на індексі соціальної справедливості, як новітньому соціальному показнику, що був розроблений в Європейському Союзі та щорічно оновлюється інститутами ЄС. Зазначається, що з кожним роком збільшується розрив між успішними країнами Північної Європи та країнами південної частини ЄС, які до сих пір перебувають в посткризовій фазі. Проте, в той же час, протягом останніх років в більшості країн ЄС індекс соціальної справедливості залишається не прийнятним на високому рівні, та в цілому не має тенденції до погіршення. Автор також розгляда є можливості застосування Індексу соціальної справедливості та його підіндекс ів в Україні. Україна також аналізується в рамках Індексу людського розвитку ООН, в якості іншого прикладу соціальних індексів.

Public reason liberalism is the most influential position in the debate concerning the problem of reasonable pluralism. The core of this account relies on the idea that coercion must be justified to all citizens with reasons they can reasonably be expected to accept. Citizens ought to discipline themselves in public discourse because respect triggers a duty to support only those laws for which they have public justification. The notion of respect is pivotal to all forms of public reason liberalism, both consensus and convergence, for it frames the very idea of public justification (Rawls 1993; Gaus 2011). However, the concept of respect as used within public reason liberalism is controversial. In this paper, I question public reason liberals' defence of the link between respect and public justification, I argue that the idea of respect thereby employed turn out to be authoritarian, and show that the problem rests on a misunderstanding about justification. First, I tackle Rawls's account and argue that his famous distinction between reasonable and unreasonable citizens is problematic because it undercuts its own scope of justifying a political conception of justice to all. Indeed, since public justification is realized by agreement on shared reasons, only those reasonable citizens who prioritize political values over their comprehensive doctrine are given reasons they can accept. In this sense, since public justification is not possible with unreasonable citizens, the requirements mandated by respect do not hold towards them. Secondly, I engage with Gaus's latest theory and argue that his intelligibility requirement set on evaluative standpoints (2011, 279-282) is problematic. Given that the term "intelligibility", as it is presented by Gaus, seems to denote more than mere comprehension, and that public justification should represent a test only for intelligible standpoints, the theory ends up being in contrast with his own idea that it is wrong to subject someone to rules she does not have reason to endorse. Both Rawls's and Gaus's theory intend the notion of respect as a duty to resist the temptation to subject others to one's private judgment. However, although it is correct to think that there is something morally objectionable to coerce another on the basis of one's beliefs, there is nothing wrong to coerce another on the basis of what I call one's reasons, namely on those features of the circumstances that make it the case for a certain law or policy to be wrong (Raz 1998; Enoch 2013). Since there is nothing authoritarian about issuing a certain demand on the basis that it is the case, not to abide by the rules of public justification is not by itself disrespectful. Moreover, in general, it seems that public reason liberals take for granted the idea that to respect one is to provide her with reasons she can accept. However, they fail to provide a real argument for such a claim and mostly rely on its intuitive appeal and misunderstand what justification is really about. Without a convincing argument from respect, public reason liberalism fails.

Book reviews in this article:Life in the Balance The Last Days of Mankind: Ecological Survival or Extinction by Samuel Mines.Water Resource Planning The Outlook for Water: Quality, Quantity, and National Growth by Nathaniel Wollman and Gilbert W. Bonem.Impending Collapse Overskill: The Decline of Technology in modern Civilization by Eugene S. SchwartzThe English Save Their Land Public Parks on Private Land in England and Wales by Warren A. Johnson.Applying Economics to Housing Housing: The Social and Economic Elements by Wallace F. Smith.A Comparative Evaluation The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of Residential Differentiation by Duncan Timms.An Aid to Community Planning Advocacy Planning for Urban Development: With Analysis of Six Demonstration Programs by Earl M. Blecher.Taking the Lid off Housing Toward a Free Housing Market by Daniel Jay BaumReducing Poverty On Relief: The Economics of Poverty and Public Welfare by Bruno Stein. Perspectives on Poverty und Income Distribution by James G. Scoville.The Role of Trade Trade and Growth in the Philippines: An Open Dual Economy by George L. Hicks and Goeffrey McNicoll.Governments as Change Agents Government and Economic Development, edited by Gustav Ranis.An Involved Economist Economic Heresies: Some Old‐Fashioned Questions in Economic Theory by Joan Robinson.Integrating the NEA The National Education Association and the Black Teacher: The Integration of a Professional Organization by Michael John Schultz, Jr.Not All to the Good American Indians and Federal Aid by Alan L. Sorkin.A Comprehensive Review An Introduction to Regional Economics by Edgar M. Hoover.Briefer Mention Culture and Scarcity The Growth of Economic Thought by Henry William Spiegel.Growth Statistics Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure by Simon Kuznets.Emphasis on the Interdisciplinary Economic Development and Social Change: The Modernization of Village Communities, edited by George Dalton.A Talk on Tape A Rap on Race by Margaret Mead and James Baldwin.Afro‐Americans' Story The Long Struggle for Black Power by Edward Peeks.A Conservative's View The New Racism: Reverse Discrimination in America by Lionel Lokos.Significant Addresses Challenge and Perspective in Higher Education by Francis H. Horn.Utopian Thoughts The Metropolis: Its People, Politics, and Economic Life by John C. Bollens and Henry J. Schmandt. Urbino: The History of a City and Plum for Its Development by Giancarlo De Carlo Autokind vs. Mankind by Kenneth R. Schneider. Comparative Government by S. E. Finer. The Widening Gap: Development in the 1970′s, edited by Barbara Ward, J. D. Runnalls, and Lenore D'Anjou. Planning for Development in Libya: The Exceptional Economy in the Developing World by Rawle Farley. Tradition and Modernization: A Challenge for Lam among the Dink of the Sudan by Francis Mading Deng. Democracy by Dorothy Pickles. The Midwest: Myth or Reality? edited by Thomas T. McAvoy. America the Dutiful: An Assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy by Philip W. Quigg. Diplomaism by David Hapgood. Evaluation of Alterative Plans for New Communities: Toward Application of the Competition‐for‐Benefits Model by H. Benjamin Fisher. Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s by Frederick G. Dutton.

Was ist Gerechtigkeit? Wie könnten gerechte Regelungen aussehen für die Katastrophen und Leiden, die der Klimawandel auslöst bzw. auslösen wird? Diese sind häufig ungerecht, weil sie oft deutlich stärker diejenigen treffen, die am wenigsten zur Klimaveränderung beigetragen haben. Doch was genau verstehen wir unter dem Schlagwort: 'Klimawandel'? Und kann dieser wirklich den Menschen direkt treffen? Ein kurzer naturwissenschaftlicher Abriss klärt hier die wichtigsten Fragen. Da es sich hierbei um eine philosophische Arbeit handelt, muss zunächst geklärt werden, ob der Mensch überhaupt die Ursache von so etwas sein kann wie z.B. der Klimaerwärmung. Robert Spaemanns These dazu ist, dass der Mensch durch seinen freien Willen mit seinen Einzelhandlungen das Weltgeschehen verändern kann. Hans Jonas fügt dem hinzu, dass wir durch diese Fähigkeit, verantwortlich sind für die gewollten und ungewollten Folgen unserer Handlungen. Damit wäre aus naturwissenschaftlicher Sicht (1. Teil der Arbeit) und aus philosophischer Sicht (Anfang 2. Teil) geklärt, dass der Mensch mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit die Ursache des Klimawandels ist und diese Verursachung moralische Konsequenzen für ihn hat. Ein philosophischer Gerechtigkeitsbegriff wird aus der Kantischen Rechts- und Moralphilosophie entwickelt, weil diese die einzige ist, die dem Menschen überhaupt ein Recht auf Rechte zusprechen kann. Diese entspringt der transzendentalen Freiheitsfähigkeit des Menschen, weshalb jedem das Recht auf Rechte absolut und immer zukommt. Gleichzeitig mündet Kants Philosophie wiederum in dem Freiheitsgedanken, indem Gerechtigkeit nur existiert, wenn alle Menschen gleichermaßen frei sein können. Was heißt das konkret? Wie könnte Gerechtigkeit in der Realität wirklich umgesetzt werden? Die Realisierung schlägt zwei Grundrichtungen ein. John Rawls und Stefan Gosepath beschäftigen sich u.a. eingehend mit der prozeduralen Gerechtigkeit, was bedeutet, dass gerechte Verfahren gefunden werden, die das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben regeln. Das leitende Prinzip hierfür ist vor allem: ein Mitbestimmungsrecht aller, so dass sich im Prinzip alle Bürger ihre Gesetze selbst geben und damit frei handeln. In Bezug auf den Klimawandel steht die zweite Ausrichtung im Vordergrund – die distributive oder auch Verteilungs-Gerechtigkeit. Materielle Güter müssen so aufgeteilt werden, dass auch trotz empirischer Unterschiede alle Menschen als moralische Subjekte anerkannt werden und frei sein können. Doch sind diese philosophischen Schlussfolgerungen nicht viel zu abstrakt, um auf ein ebenso schwer fassbares und globales Problem wie den Klimawandel angewendet zu werden? Was könnte daher eine Klimagerechtigkeit sein? Es gibt viele Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien, die vorgeben, eine gerechte Grundlage für die Klimaprobleme zu bieten wie z.B. das Verursacherprinzip, das Fähigkeitsprinzip oder das Grandfathering-Prinzip, bei dem die Hauptverursacher nach wie vor am meisten emittieren dürfen (dieses Prinzip leitete die bisherigen internationalen Verhandlungen). Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist, herauszufinden, wie die Klimaprobleme gelöst werden können, so dass für alle Menschen unter allen Umständen die universellen Menschenrechte her- und sichergestellt werden und diese frei und moralisch handeln können. Die Schlussfolgerung dieser Arbeit ist, dass Kants Gerechtigkeitsbegriff durch eine Kombination des Subsistenzemissions-Rechts, des Greenhouse-Development-Rights-Principles (GDR-Prinzip) und einer internationalen Staatlichkeit durchgesetzt werden könnte. Durch das Subsistenzemissions-Recht hat jeder Mensch das Recht, so viel Energie zu verbrauchen und damit zusammenhängende Emissionen zu produzieren, dass er ein menschenwürdiges Leben führen kann. Das GDR-Prinzip errechnet den Anteil an der weltweiten Gesamtverantwortung zum Klimaschutz eines jeden Landes oder sogar eines jeden Weltbürgers, indem es die historischen Emissionen (Klimaschuld) zu der jetzigen finanziellen Kapazität des Landes/ des Individuums (Verantwortungsfähigkeit) hinzuaddiert. Die Implementierung von internationalen Gremien wird verteidigt, weil es ein globales, grenzüberschreitendes Problem ist, dessen Effekte und dessen Verantwortung globale Ausmaße haben. Ein schlagendes Argument für fast alle Klimaschutzmaßnahmen ist, dass sie Synergien aufweisen zu anderen gesellschaftlichen Bereichen aufweisen wie z.B. Gesundheit und Armutsbekämpfung, in denen auch noch um die Durchsetzung unserer Menschenrechte gerungen wird. Ist dieser Lösungsansatz nicht völlig utopisch? Dieser Vorschlag stellt für die internationale Gemeinschaft eine große Herausforderung dar, wäre jedoch die einzig gerechte Lösung unserer Klimaprobleme. Des Weiteren wird an dem Kantischen Handlungsgrundsatz festgehalten, dass das ewige Streben auf ideale Ziele hin, die beste Verwirklichung dieser durch menschliche, fehlbare Wesen ist. ; What is justice? What could be fair regulations concerning the catastrophes and the suffering that will be evoked/are already evoked by climate change? These are often unfair, because they strike most likely the people who contributed the less to climate warming. But what do we mean with the term 'climate change'? Can this phenomenon really strike human beings directly? A short scientific introduction explains the most important questions. Like this is a philosophical analysis, there has to be clarified if mankind can be the origin of something like global warming. The statement of Robert Spaemann is that a person can change the world affairs by a single action. Hans Jonas adds to this that this capacity imposes us the responsibility for the wanted and the unwanted effects of our action. With this first part of the work (scientific introduction) and the beginning of the second part (philosophical part) it is proved that human beings can be the reason for climate change and that this causation has a moral impact on them. I extracted a philosophical term of 'justice' out of the moral theory of Immanuel Kant because to my mind, this is the only philosophical and scientific approach which is able to grant us a right of rights. The right of rights belongs absolutely and under every circumstance to every person because it originates in the transcendental capacity of freedom of human beings. At the same time it ends up in the thought of freedom like justice can only exist if every human being can be free. What does this mean precisely? How could justice be implemented in the reality? The realization drives in two principal directions. John Rawls and Stefan Gosepath examined thoroughly the procedural justice that means that fair procedures have to be found to organize the living together in a society. The main principle here above all is the participation of decision making of all members of the society like that everybody could have decided the rules himself. Therefore everybody acts after his own decisions and freely. Concerning climate change, the second possibility of justice is more crucial – the justice of distribution. Material goods have to be allocated the way that all people can be acknowledged as moral subjects. Likewise everybody can be free despite of empirical differences. But are these philosophical conclusions not way to abstract to be applied for a complex and global problem like climate change? What could be a concrete climate justice? There are a lot of principles of justice that are supposed to give a fair basis within the sector of climate problems like the polluter-pays-principle, the ability-to-pay-principle, the grandfathering-principle. The last one allows the main polluters to still emit the majority of the worldwide emissions in the future. This view of orientation led mainly all the international negotiations in the past. The aim of this thesis is to find out how climate problems can be solved the way that every person can be assured of his basic human rights. Consequently everybody would have the possibility to act freely and morally. The conclusion of this written work is that the meaning of justice in the sense of the Kantian theory can be realized by a combination of the subsistence emissions right, the greenhouse-development-rights-principles (GDR-principle) and international institutions. The subsistence emissions right guaranties every person the right to use as much energy and therefore produce as many emissions, the person needs to lead a dignified life. The GDR-principle faces the worldwide responsibility to mitigate climate change and calculates the portion of responsibility of each country or even of each citizen. It does this by adding the quantity of historical emissions (the climate debt) to the current financial capacity of each country or citizen (responsibility). The implementation of international committees is necessary because climate warming is a global, boarder passing problem which possible solutions have inadvertently global dimensions. A crucial argument for nearly all mitigation measures is that they almost always offer synergetic effects to other social sectors like health or the fight against global poverty which demand as well urgently the enforcement of our basic human rights. But is this solution not totally idealistic? This proposition would pose a big challenge to the international community. At the same time it is the only fair solution to climate change for all human beings. Furthermore and eventually, we have to focus on the Kantian solution that the eternal striving towards this idealization is the best way human fallible beings can achieve to realize utopic solutions.

Gegenstand des Werkes ist die Untersuchung der Zahlungsunfähigkeit von Bußgeldadressaten nach Ziffer 35 der Bußgeldleitlinien 2006 (sog. "inability to pay") bei der Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung durch die Europäische Kommission. Die Autorin setzt sich mit den wichtigsten wettbewerbstheoretischen Ansätzen auseinander, um die Bedeutung der ordoliberalen Wettbewerbsfreiheit, die Rolle der Effizienz und die Grenzen der Abschreckung im Hinblick auf die Leistungsfähigkeit von Bußgeldadressaten zu erläutern. In diesem Zusammenhang formuliert sie konkrete Vorschläge für die Anwendung von Ziffer 35 der Bußgeldleitlinien. Parallel dazu wird der Einsatz von diversen Sanktionsmöglichkeiten in Zusammenhang mit der Zahlungsunfähigkeit analysiert.

This thesis is concerned with the question of justified social order in complex and diverse societies. The first step in giving an answer consists in the rejection of the answer typically given within the familiar Rawlsian paradigm: the construction of hypothetical agents, facing a hypothetical choice situation, from which normative principles of morality or justice are derived. The second step thus consists in providing an alternative methodological framework made up of three building blocks. One, a descriptive account of the object of normative theorizing. Two, a model of justified social order as an open-ended ideal and, three, a procedure and testing conception relating the ideal back to social reality. In a third step I spell out this approach in form of a theory of justified social order. The normative core of this theory consists in the idea of justified social order as a compromise with psychological ownership. That is to say that social order is at least a compromise to the mutual benefit of everybody governed by that order. Ideally, it is further endorsed by all individuals to the extent that they can actually identify with a given set of norms as their own order. In a fourth and final step I argue that this open-ended ideal can be related to social reality by thinking of a social mechanism of norm selection and by adding a testing conception of justified social order. I only begin to sketch the contours of both ideas. My reflections on mechanism design bring together the field of deliberative democracy and a range of other ideas relevant to reasonable political decision-making. The idea of a testing conception is pursued by thinking about a comparative index of justified social order, in analogy to indices of democracy. In a nutshell, this inquiry argues for a procedural answer to the question of justified social order while replacing several normative notions commonly found in justificatory liberalism by notions that have an empirical and especially psychological underpinning. ; Thema dieser Dissertation ist die Möglichkeit und Ausgestaltung gerechtfertigter sozialer Ordnung in komplexen und diversen Gesellschaften. Ein wohl bekannter Ansatz um diese Frage zu beantworten besteht darin, eine hypothetische Entscheidungssituation zwischen hypothetischen Akteuren theoretisch zu konstruieren und daraus normative Prinzipien der Moral oder der Gerechtigkeit abzuleiten. Diese vor allem durch John Rawls bekannte Vorgehensweise erweist sich jedoch bei genauerer Betrachtung als ungeeignet. Je nach Auslegung, so meine Kritik, scheitert der hypothetische Ansatz entweder an der Überwindung des Pluralismus oder bedient sich illegitimer Abstraktionen. Daher argumentiere ich in dieser Arbeit sowohl für einen alternativen methodologischen Ansatz als auch für eine alternative Theorie gerechtfertigter sozialer Ordnung. Der hier vertretene Ansatz besteht darin, theoretisch-normative Überlegungen systematisch auf ihren tatsächlichen Gegenstand zu beziehen -- eine Gemeinschaft aus Individuen und ihre Normen. Konkret besteht mein methodologischer Vorschlag aus drei Bausteinen: erstens, einer deskriptiven Konzeption sozialer Ordnung, zweitens, eines offenen und prozeduralen Ideals, und drittens, einer Übersetzung des Ideals in die soziale Wirklichkeit. Meine Theorie gerechtfertigter Ordnung veranschaulicht diese Vorgehensweise. Konkret gründet sich die Theorie auf ein Verständnis von sozialer Ordnung als eine Menge von sozialen Normen -- Regeln, welche unser Verhalten alltäglich koordinieren und so stabile und kooperative Gesellschaften ermöglichen. Der Idealzustand der hier vertretenen Theorie besteht darin, dass wir die gemeinsame soziale Ordnung als einen wertvollen Kompromiss befürworten und dadurch als unsere eigene Ordnung annehmen können. Eine solche Identifikation mit der gegebenen sozialen Ordnung wird in der politischen Theorie schon länger als erstrebenswerter Gegenpol zur Entfremdung diskutiert. Der weiterführende Beitrag dieser Arbeit besteht darin, diesen Idealzustand mit Hilfe eines psychologischen Konstrukts namens "psychological ownership" genauer zu erfassen. Das entscheidende normative Moment des angestrebten Idealzustandes besteht in der Befürwortung von und Identifikation mit sozialer Ordnung auf der Grundlage wohlüberlegter Gründe. Darüber hinaus zeigt die Theorie, dass sich ein solcher Idealzustand tatsächlich nur im Rahmen eines öffentlichen Diskurses anstreben lässt. Schließlich diskutiere ich wie das Ideal in realen Gesellschaften mittels eines politischen Mechanismus verfolgt werden kann und skizziere einen Index zur Überprüfung der Annäherung an das Ideal gerechtfertigter sozialer Ordnung.

В статье отмечается, что конфликт между категориями «социальная справедливость» и «экономическая эффективность» характеризует современные индустриальные и постиндустриальные государства. Представлены индикаторы, иллюстрирующие приоритет социальной направленности развития экономических систем над их эффективностью. К таким индикаторам относятся объемы и механизмы перераспределения доходов экономических агентов. С помощью квинтильного анализа (на примере США) подтверждены тенденция сдвига налоговой нагрузки на более состоятельные группы населения и общий сдвиг в сторону большей социальной справедливости. Обращено внимание на многозначность понятия «социальная справедливость» как в экономической науке, так и в других гуманитарных дисциплинах. Для оценки справедливости анализируются функции общественного благосостояния. Два формальных подхода функциональный и либертаристский используются при построении этих функций. В качестве индикатора перераспределительных процессов предлагается рассмотреть долю консолидированных государственных расходов в ВВП как элемента, характеризующего справедливость. Для определения приоритетов социально-экономического развития изучается структура расходов консолидированного бюджета РФ в разрезе статей и в сравнении с другими странами. Выбор между справедливостью и эффективностью изучен через призму соотношения социальных расходов и расходов на национальную экономику России. Сделаны выводы, что структура расходов российского консолидированного бюджета 2011-2013 гг. указывает на соблюдение баланса между «маслом и пушками», а расходы на образование могут рассматриваться как трансакции, одновременно способствующие достижению и эффективности, и справедливости, поскольку порождают мультипликационные процессы. Однако именно эти расходы отстают от аналогичных показателей многих стран как в относительном, так и в абсолютном значениях, что стратегически ограничивает развитие экономической системы России. Подчеркивается, что российская система перераспределения ресурсов в общественном секторе экономики РФ представляет собой структуру, определяющуюся различными подходами к справедливости (утилитаристским, эгалитарным и роулзианским). ; The conflict between the categories of "social justice" and "economic efficiency" is an attribute of modern industrial and post-industrial States. The paper presents the indicators illustrating the priority of social orientation of economic systems' development over their efficiency. The indicators include volumes and mechanisms of income redistributions of economic agents. Using the quintile analysis (the case of the USA), the author confirms the trend in the tax burden shift towards wealthier groups of population and the total shift towards more social justice. The paper draws attention to the polysemantic nature of the "social justice" concept both in economic science and in other human sciences. The author analyzes the functions of social welfare to assess justice and uses two approaches, i.e. functional and libertarian, to build these functions. In the capacity of an indicator of redistribution processes, the author proposes to consider the share of consolidated government expenditures in the GDP as an element that characterizes justice. The paper reviews the structure of the Russian consolidated budget expenditures broken down by budget items and in comparison with other countries. The author studies justice and efficiency through the prism of balance of social expenditures and expenditures for the Russian national economy. The conclusions are as follows: firstly, the structure of the Russian consolidated budget (2011-2013) points to a proper balance between "guns and butter", and secondly, expenditures for education can be considered as transactions, which simultaneously help to achieve both efficiency and justice, as they create multiplier effects. However, these expenditures in Russia are less than in many other countries. The lag restrains the strategic development of the Russian economic system. Thirdly, the Russian system of resource redistribution in the public sector represents a structure, which is determined by various approaches to justice (the Utilitarian, Egalitarian and Rawls' theories).

The process of European Union (EU) integration proceeds from economic to political integration. The economic integration itself proceeds from trade to financial to complete market integration. The sustainability of the process depends on some causal relation existing between economic and political integration. This causality is captured, in this paper, in the proposition that price-taking leads to policy-taking. This proposition of integration is defended against arguments from diverse sources and fields that maintain that homogeneity is necessary for integration or, in other words, that diversity stands in the way of integration. New developments in political philosophy (Rawls), social choice theory, macroeconomics and new institutional economics are reviewed with respect to their importance for the actual problems that EU integration and enlargement face. In the second part of the paper a converse of the proposition on integration is discussed. This proposition on disintegration states that policy-setters are price-setters too. Assuming the truth of the proposition, it follows that policy divergence, i.e., delayed integration, can be explained in terms of the political economy of the process. The benefits in the delay can be found in the possibility of relying on institutional and policy arrangements the use of which becomes feasible if integration is delayed. These benefits are mainly distributive and not allocative, i.e., they accrue from the use of less-than-democratic and other-than-market instruments of distribution of national resources. These political economy considerations apply mostly to those countries that are, actually or potentially, economically integrated with the EU, but are delaying or postponing their political integration. These are called 'stay-outs'. There are also those that can be classified as 'left-outs', i.e., countries that are not politically integrated with the EU because the EU is not ready to take them in. There are also 'opt-outs', which are countries that decide to stay out of one or the other facet of EU integration (e.g., from the monetary union). Apart from all these 'outs', there are countries that are outsiders. Examples are countries like Ukraine or Russia. These are countries which are, at the minimum, not economically integrated with the EU, temporarily or permanently. It is assumed that it is all but impossible for a country to be politically integrated into the EU and economically disintegrated from it. Given this complex political geography of the EU, the costs of stay-outs are studied. It is first illustrated that their actual or potential trade integration with the EU is quite high. Thus, these are countries that reveal inconsistent preferences their economic preferences are for integration, while their political preferences are against it. One would expect that their economic policy would be such as to stand in the way of their economic development. This fact is illustrated by looking at the divergence of their money markets from those in the EU. Given that they have significantly higher inflation than the EU and given that their interest rates are also significantly higher, their actual growth rate should be lower than the potential one. This lower than possible growth rate is the main cost of their policy of delaying integration.

Frontmatter --Preface --List of Contributors --Introduction --Part I: Perspectives on the Usefulness of Economics as a Guide for Social Policy --1. The Economic Approach to Social Policy Questions: Some Methodological Perspectives /Amacher, Ryan C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --2. Consensus and Controversy in Political Economy /Okun, Arthur M. --3. On the Limited "Relevance" of Economics /Heilbroner, Robert L. --4. Science and Ideology in Economics /Solow, Robert M. --5. Dissent in Economics: The Convergence of Extremes /Olson, Mancur / Clague, Christopher K. --Part II: Application of Economic Thinking to Some Particular Social Problems --A. Crime and Punishment --7. An Economic Approach to Crime /Tullock, Gordon --8. Equity versus Efficiency in Law Enforcement /Thurow, Lester C. --B. Higher Education and the Dissemination of Information --9. Resources for Higher Education: An Economist's View /Schultz, Theodore W. --10. The University and the Price System /Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --C. The Environment --11. Economists on the Doomsday Models: A Review of The Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows et al, and Norid Dynamics and Urban Dynamics, by Jay W. Forrester /Passell, Peter / Roberts, Marc / Ross, Leonard --12. Population and Environmental Quality /Fisher, Anthony C. --13. The Economics of Fatal Mistakes: Fiscal Mechanisms for Preserving Endangered Predators /Amacher, Ryan C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --D. Revenue Sharing and the Drawing of Political Boundary Lines --14. Federalism: Problems of Scale /Tullock, Gordon --15. Revenue Sharing: Alternative to Rational Fiscal Federalism? /McLure, Charles E. --Part III: Economists on Equity, Justice, and the Distribution of Income --16. A Menu of Distributional Considerations /Amacher, Ryan C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --17. On Limiting the Domain of Inequality /Tobin, James --18. Director's Law of Public Income Redistribution /Stigler, George J. --19. Two Concepts of Equity and Their Implications for Public Policy /Pauly, Mark V. / Willett, Thomas D. --20. The Utilitarian Contract: A Generalization of Rawls' Theory of Justice /Mueller, Dennis C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --Part IV: Economists on Governmental and Political Failure --A. Deviation from the Ideal in Governmental Behavior --21. Toward Analysis of Closed Behavioral Systems /Buchanan, James M. --22. The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy /Niskanen, William A. --23. Divergences between Individual and Total Costs Within Government /McKean, Roland N. --B. Problems of Informed Voting --24. A Program for Direct and Proxy Voting in the Legislative Process /Miller, James C. --25. On Homo Politicus and the Instant Referendum /Shubik, Martin --26. Representative Democracy via Random Selection /Mueller, Dennis C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --27. Some Simple Economics of Voting and Not Voting /Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --C. Are There Systematic Biases in Government Budget Size? --28. Risk Avoidance and Political Advertising: Neglected Issues in the Literature on Budget Size in a Democracy /Amacher, Ryan C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --29. Attitudes toward Risk and the Relative Size of the Public Sector /Greene, Kenneth V. --D. Rationalizing our Political Decision-making --30. Solving the Intensity Problem in Representative Democracy /Mueller, Dennis C. / Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --Part V: Economics and Economists in the Policy Process --31. The Economist and Presidential Leadership /Okun, Arthur M. --32. Reflections on Political Economy /Shultz, George P. --33. The American Council of Economic Advisers and the German Sachverstaendigenrat: A Study in the Economics of Advice /Wallich, Henry C. --34. Muddling Through: An Alternative View of the Decision Process /Schultze, Charles L. --35. A Modest Proposal /Tullock, Gordon --36. A Defense of the CEA as an Instrument for Giving Economic Policy Advice /Tollison, Robert D. / Willett, Thomas D. --Index of Names

The author conducts a comparative analysis of authoritarian liberalism's concepts in contemporary political theory. The article deals with the main directions of interpretation of authoritarian liberalism in the framework of methodological approaches and conceptual models of neoliberalism, ordoliberalism, John Rawls' theory of political liberalism, Jan-Werner Mueller's "restrained democracy", Jürgen Habermas' "legitimation crisis", Colin Crouch's "post-democracy", Michael Wilkinson's "de-democratization", Crawford Macpherson's "participatory democracy", Wolfgang Streeck's "democratic capitalism crisis", Giandomenico Majone's «crypto-federalism». The basic analytical concept is the idea of authoritarian economic liberalism, fi rst proposed by H. Heller and K. Polanyi. For the purpose of methodological refl ection, an analytical review of methods and concepts based on modern political and constitutional theory and used in the study of the institutional specifi cs of authoritarian liberalism has been carried out. Authoritarian liberalism is conceptualized as the neoliberal ideology and practice of de-democratization and restriction of democracy, which results in regionalization of protest against the supranational regime of liberal democracy and political integration in Europe. If authoritarian liberalism focuses on economic liberalism, then authoritarian ways of implementing policies are subject to the interests of private property: authoritarianism strengthens economic liberalism, which, in turn, reinforces the EU's "authoritarian transformation". In the context of the Euro-crisis, authoritarian liberalism restricts traditional forms of representative democracy, political struggle, and the legitimation of power, contributing to the reanimation of ethnic nationalism. In contemporary Europe, right-wing euroskeptics are gaining popularity. The authoritarian-liberal restriction of social democracy can lead not only to the strengthening of capitalism, but also to the revival of the reactionary forms of «new nationalism» and authoritarian illiberalism. The EU is developing today in the "neo-colonial paradigm" in accordance with the relations between the core and the periphery between creditor countries and debtor countries. Transnational solidarity suppressed by authoritarian liberalism can become a democratically legitimate tool for resolving a fundamental confl ict between market capitalism and representative democracy ; Автор проводит сравнительный анализ концепций авторитарного либерализма в современной политической теории. В статье анализируются основные направления интерпретации авторитарного либерализма в рамках методологических подходов и концептуальных моделей неолиберализма, ордолиберализма, политического либерализма Дж. Ролза, «ограниченной демократии» Я.-В. Мюллера, «кризиса легитимации» Ю. Хабермаса, «постдемократии» К. Крауча, «де-демократизации» М. Уилкинсона, «демократии участия» К. Макферсона, «кризиса демократического капитализма» В. Штреека, «криптофедерализма» Дж. Маджоне. Базовым аналитическим концептом является идея авторитарного экономического либерализма, впервые предложенная Г. Хеллером и К. Поланьи. В целях методологической рефлексии проведен аналитический обзор методов и концепций, опирающихся на современную политическую и конституционную теорию и применяющихся при изучении институциональной специфики авторитарного либерализма. Авторитарный либерализм концептуализируется как неолиберальная идеология и практика де-демократизации и ограничения демократии, результатом которой становится регионализация протеста против супранационального режима либеральной демократии и политической интеграции. Если авторитарный либерализм делает акцент на экономическом либерализме, то авторитарные способы реализации политики подчиняются интересам частной собственности: авторитаризм усиливает экономический либерализм, который, в свою очередь, усиливает «авторитарную трансформацию». В контексте еврокризиса авторитарный либерализм ограничивает традиционные формы представительной демократии, политической борьбы и легитимации власти, способствуя реанимации этнического национализма. В современной Европе правые евроскептики набирают популярность и в этой ситуации авторитарно-либеральное ограничение социал-демократии может привести не только к укреплению капитализма, но и к возрождению реакционных форм «нового национализма» и авторитарного иллиберализма. ЕС сегодня развивается в «неоколониальной парадигме» в соответствии с отношениями между ядром и периферией между странами-кредиторами и должниками; в этой ситуации демократически легитимным инструментом разрешения фундаментального противоречия между рыночным капитализмом и представительной демократией может стать подавляемая авторитарным либерализмом транснациональная солидарность.

Una convinzione molto diffusa vuole che la discussione sulla giustizia si disponga all'interno di un contesto territoriale ben definito e riguardi principalmente le relazioni tra cittadini di uno Stato nazionale. Questa è l'opinione che non soltanto fa sfondo alle classiche trattazioni della giustizia, da Platone a Rawls, passando per Hume, ma che permea la comprensione comune dei problemi di giustizia. Anche se nella storia non è mai stata del tutto assente l'attenzione per le questioni di giustizia che superano i confini, occorre rilevare che il fenomeno della globalizzazione sta modificando il nostro modo di pensare e di impostare i problemi di giustizia. Al radicarsi della globalizzazione cresce esponenzialmente la percezione che esistono problemi di giustizia oltre le frontiere che incidono fortemente nell'assetto interno. Il modo come operano le istituzioni a livello domestico, talvolta, producono le circostanze di ingiustizie oltre i confini nazionali, mettendo in pericolo la sopravvivenza di molti esseri umani e creando squilibri sociali estremi. Tali circostanze di ingiustizie innescano il fenomeno migratorio (cap. III e IV). Accanto a questa percezione perdura l'idea che il luogo proprio della giustizia sia l'ambito domestico. Le teorie della giustizia si dividono allora in due gruppi: quelle che continuano a sostenere l'esclusiva pertinenza della giustizia nella comunità politica e quelle che si attrezzano per dare conto di queste nuove percezioni (cap. I e II). L'idea che le questioni di giustizia siano correttamente impostate all'interno dei confini è profondamente unita a quella secondo cui il luogo tradizionale per dibattere questioni di giustizia è il foro pubblico nazionale, soprattutto a motivo dell'importanza dell'autodeterminazione. Oltre al principio di autonomia e di partecipazione all'individuazione dei criteri di giustizia, anche le ragioni della comunanza degli orizzonti culturali e della prossimità territoriale alimentano la tesi della giustizia domestica. La giustizia globale, dal punto di vista della sua realizzabilità e praticabilità, solleva perplessità. Essa è inevitabilmente astratta, utopica e manca di realismo. La giustizia globale evoca uno Stato globale o planetario o almeno istituzioni globali e planetarie, che svolgono a livello mondiale il ruolo che lo Stato svolge nella comunità politica nazionale e che siano alla stessa maniera suscettibili di ricevere legittimazione. Dunque, è difficile pensare ad una giustizia globale se non si istituzionalizza un sistema effettivo della sovranità planetaria. L'obiettivo principale di questa tesi non è quello di abbracciare l'idea di giustizia domestica, scartando quella di giustizia globale o viceversa, ma quello di armonizzare entrambe. Si tratta di individuare una teoria normativa che non abolisca il diritto degli Stato all'integrità territoriale e all'indipendenza politica e decisionale, ma ammetta al tempo stesso l'esistenza di obblighi di natura politica al di là dei confini dello Stato. La comunità nazionale può continuare a rivendicare la propria utilità e adeguatezza rispetto ad alcuni obiettivi ma ciò non toglie che vi possa essere una giustizia oltre i confini. Il quadro teorico di riferimento è costituito dalla teoria della giustizia sul diritto morale di migrare e riguarda tre questioni principali: l'ammissione degli immigrati, i trattamenti degli immigrati e la convivenza in società di pluralismo culturale. In questa tesi la nostra attenzione è rivolta al primo aspetto. Si sottopongono alla valutazione critica diversi aspetti del fenomeno migratorio, al fine di verificare se la pretesa dello Stato di escludere gli immigrati dal proprio territorio sia moralmente e sufficientemente giustificata. Il lavoro si conclude evidenziando diversi fattori endogeni a favore dell'ammissione degli immigrati quali: l'invecchiamento demografico, la riduzione della natalità, il fabbisogno di manodopera (cap. V e VI) e i limiti fissati dal diritto internazionale alla regola generale, secondo cui lo Stato ha il diritto di allontanare gli stranieri dal proprio territorio in virtù del principio di sovranità territoriale (cap. VII).

У статті проведено історико-теоретичну реконструкцію поняття «громадянське суспільство». Громадянське суспільство – необхідний стимул розвитку і процвітання держави. Виділено фактори, які сприяють розвитку громадянського суспільства. Громадянське суспільство максимально розкриває свій потенціал в плюралістичному, ліберально-демократичному суспільстві. Ступінь розвитку громадянського суспільства залежить від соціально-політичних інститутів, в яких воно розвивається. ; В статье предпринята попытка историко-теоретической реконструкции понятия «гражданское общество». Гражданское общество является необходимым стимулом развития и процветания государства. Выделены факторы, которые способствуют развитию гражданского общества. Гражданское общество максимально раскрывает свой потенциал в плюралистическом, либерально-демократическом обществе. Степень развития гражданского общества зависит от социально-политических институтов, в которых оно развивается. ; Problem setting: Civil society is a necessary incentive for the development and prosperity of the state. On the one hand, civil society is a relatively autonomous entity. Civil society does not depend on the political system. On the other hand, civil society influences politics.Recent research and publication analysis. The thinkers of the past explore a wide range of problems in the functioning and development of civil society: Aristotle, T. Hobbes, D. Locke, J. Rousseau. Modern researchers continue to study civil society: J.B. Rawls, C. Spurk, V.L. Bestor, S. J. Scott, N. L. Rosenblum, R.C. Post, J. L. Cohen, A. Arato, D. Pietrzyk, A. Seligman. Practical aspects: D.Cortright, M.Greenberg, D.Shelley Lane, Steven M. DeLue, Timothy M. Dale. At the same time, it should be stated that the issues of assessing the mutual influence of civil society and politics, practical and theoretical significance, are not sufficiently developed.Paper objective paper main body On the other hand, it influences political activity, administrative decisions, and actively participates in various public discussions. Creating and maintaining a healthy civil society is extremely important for the successful development and functioning of democratic political systems. The processes of globalization, computerization, an all-encompassing Internet form a new environment in which a new global ecosystem of society is emerging. This is a complex network of different people, groups, organizations, their relationships and interactions. The space needed for the formation of a civil society. Individual rights protected in this space, you can express your thoughts, not be afraid to challenge political decisions. There is also a need for a public (social and communicative) sphere in which people can express their thoughts, exchange views, news, for example, through social networks, secure communication means (such as Telegram, etc.). In this social space, norms and values are formed, originality and culture, features of the national mentality reflected; the possibility of mobilizing active participants in civil society, volunteers, and independent social movements acting as the leitmotif of civil society is being realized. The article studies the concept of "civil society". The article uses the method of historical and theoretical reconstruction. It is necessary to consider a complex concept from different sides. It is necessary to present its various aspects; to identify the factors of development and the reasons hindering the development of civil society. Different philosophical schools, classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, critical theory, pragmatism, feminism, natural law, and various religions offer their understanding. Conclusions of the research. There is no single concept of civil society. The parameters of civil society in different countries will differ. The main idea of civil society formed on the foundation of Greek philosophical thought and actualized in a modern pluralistic, liberal-democratic society. Civil society shaped to achieve specific goals, social change, or control over politicians. Although civil society has a political dimension, political parties are not an attribute of civil society.