Suchergebnisse

The article provides a system of scientific proposals which could be prospective in forming and implementing the effective state policy in the sphere of crime control. The strategic trend of that policy instead of making the laws and punishment stricter, should eliminate in complex way social causes and conditions of criminality, i.e., crime prevention, oriented first of all to social groups of people mostly not adapted to new conditions of market society and people, living under the poverty line, young people who do not study and do not work, dysfunctional families and children who are being raised in them, young people who do not study and do not work, solution of inhabitants employment problems as well as problems of mode of life and morals. Crime prevention should become an integral part of social, economical, legal and cultural policy of the state and local governments institutions. It is proposed to reform in essence also the system of special crime prevention measures and institutions, decreasing their repressive and increasing positive influence by humanising and socialising of this system. Also other scientific (criminological) preconditions and practical possibilities of crime prevention in Lithuania and increase of its effectiveness are discussed paying attention not only to present but also prospective purposes and goals of this problem's solution.

The article provides a system of scientific proposals which could be prospective in forming and implementing the effective state policy in the sphere of crime control. The strategic trend of that policy instead of making the laws and punishment stricter, should eliminate in complex way social causes and conditions of criminality, i.e., crime prevention, oriented first of all to social groups of people mostly not adapted to new conditions of market society and people, living under the poverty line, young people who do not study and do not work, dysfunctional families and children who are being raised in them, young people who do not study and do not work, solution of inhabitants employment problems as well as problems of mode of life and morals. Crime prevention should become an integral part of social, economical, legal and cultural policy of the state and local governments institutions. It is proposed to reform in essence also the system of special crime prevention measures and institutions, decreasing their repressive and increasing positive influence by humanising and socialising of this system. Also other scientific (criminological) preconditions and practical possibilities of crime prevention in Lithuania and increase of its effectiveness are discussed paying attention not only to present but also prospective purposes and goals of this problem's solution.

All the sciences and even philosophical, ethic thinking and also practice are grounded by so called "line - thinking", which is efective in only limited sphere and time as synergetic paradigmus born in the 20 century. Unfortunately propositions under "line thinking" influence gave miserable results as much in politics as in government. The article shortly deals with some paradoxical synergetic confirmities (regularities) and the first observed results and chances of their using in the prevention of crimes, goverment in connection with the problem of theory and practice. It is suggested to change "strategic planing" conception into "strategic thinking" concept which joins theory and practice most effectively. In conclusion, connect of theory and practice are visible in teleonomy of emergetic evolution of social processes which are expressed namely by "strategic thinking" as intentionality obeyed to the same synergetic laws.

All the sciences and even philosophical, ethic thinking and also practice are grounded by so called "line - thinking", which is efective in only limited sphere and time as synergetic paradigmus born in the 20 century. Unfortunately propositions under "line thinking" influence gave miserable results as much in politics as in government. The article shortly deals with some paradoxical synergetic confirmities (regularities) and the first observed results and chances of their using in the prevention of crimes, goverment in connection with the problem of theory and practice. It is suggested to change "strategic planing" conception into "strategic thinking" concept which joins theory and practice most effectively. In conclusion, connect of theory and practice are visible in teleonomy of emergetic evolution of social processes which are expressed namely by "strategic thinking" as intentionality obeyed to the same synergetic laws.

The paper presents an overview of M. Weber's modelling paradigm assessing it against the opportunities of using the models in modern science of public policy and administration. Two types of research problems requiring modelling of different levels are identified. The paper defines the static and the dialectic methods of modelling, the limits and possibilities of their application are defined. The novelty and relevance of the paper lies in the substantiation of advantages and drawbacks of static modelling and in the proving of the importance of normative character of science, which contradicts the traditional Weber's methodology. In public administration one may not rely only upon formal procedures, forms and rules, because this will not reveal the functions of the State and the interests underlying them. A public administration model must be characterised by normative content. Models of social processes must not necessarily reflect the reality exactly, however, they may serve as a tool for simplifying the mechanisms of social reality and for attempting to understand its mechanisms. Modelling may be static or dialectic. Static modelling is simpler since the number of variables it takes account of is smaller. In certain cases static modelling may be presented or desirable due to value considerations raised by the idealistic world. Idealistic philosophy gives rise to relevant phenomena, which can be neither confirmed nor rejected. Such models may be desirable as the given required by a peculiar belief and as components of the given. As far as social science is a value and "humanitarian" science, to such extent metaphysics, the static given and static modelling may yield results. Philosophical idealism is often presented as a source of political and economic liberalism, or a sign of equality Is placed between them. This is not entirely correct since state and social policy studies in the liberal social sciences are based on formal concepts without any normative content. Liberal sociological definitions designed for a parliamentary-democratic constitutional state usually cover only procedures, forms, rules and state activity instruments, avoiding a definition of the State's functions completely or partially. Not only the functions of the State remain unsubstantiated; possible consequences of manifestation of these functions or the interests of those who defend them or any backstairs interests behind the declared interests arc not explained. The Weberian methodological concept of democracy turns liberal democracy and pluralist theory into a sheer arsenal of technical means, which is unpredictable and incapable of explaining the deep phenomena of public administration and the more so - of social policy. It is not only in the West, but also in Eastern Europe including Lithuania, individual politicians and public administration experts wish to reduce the principle of social welfare to the constitutional and legal level, absolutising the legal aspect. Dialectic modelling is a kind of opposite to static modelling, or modelling that may supplement the latter substantially. And this is not just because it is able to "see the context". Using the dialectic relationship one may examine such historical dichotomies as belief and science, nationality and globalism, central and local government, private and public interest etc. In the most general sense, dialectic modelling is focussed on the determination of the content, form, contradiction between content and form, and finding of the place of this relationship in the world's development process. The methodology of dialectic modelling asserts that the dialectic relationship is a universal means of modelling of qualitative processes and may be used for the modelling of the processes for which sufficient qualitative exceptionality may be determined as compared with the previous qualitative stage. Eastern Europe encounters difficulties in social modelling due to a distinct transformational nature of social systems of these countries as well as due to frequent changes in the laws governing social security and tax policy. The latter factor also poses problems for Eastern European social scientists in processing the material and in modelling socio-economic development on its basis.

The paper presents an overview of M. Weber's modelling paradigm assessing it against the opportunities of using the models in modern science of public policy and administration. Two types of research problems requiring modelling of different levels are identified. The paper defines the static and the dialectic methods of modelling, the limits and possibilities of their application are defined. The novelty and relevance of the paper lies in the substantiation of advantages and drawbacks of static modelling and in the proving of the importance of normative character of science, which contradicts the traditional Weber's methodology. In public administration one may not rely only upon formal procedures, forms and rules, because this will not reveal the functions of the State and the interests underlying them. A public administration model must be characterised by normative content. Models of social processes must not necessarily reflect the reality exactly, however, they may serve as a tool for simplifying the mechanisms of social reality and for attempting to understand its mechanisms. Modelling may be static or dialectic. Static modelling is simpler since the number of variables it takes account of is smaller. In certain cases static modelling may be presented or desirable due to value considerations raised by the idealistic world. Idealistic philosophy gives rise to relevant phenomena, which can be neither confirmed nor rejected. Such models may be desirable as the given required by a peculiar belief and as components of the given. As far as social science is a value and "humanitarian" science, to such extent metaphysics, the static given and static modelling may yield results. Philosophical idealism is often presented as a source of political and economic liberalism, or a sign of equality Is placed between them. This is not entirely correct since state and social policy studies in the liberal social sciences are based on formal concepts without any normative content. Liberal sociological definitions designed for a parliamentary-democratic constitutional state usually cover only procedures, forms, rules and state activity instruments, avoiding a definition of the State's functions completely or partially. Not only the functions of the State remain unsubstantiated; possible consequences of manifestation of these functions or the interests of those who defend them or any backstairs interests behind the declared interests arc not explained. The Weberian methodological concept of democracy turns liberal democracy and pluralist theory into a sheer arsenal of technical means, which is unpredictable and incapable of explaining the deep phenomena of public administration and the more so - of social policy. It is not only in the West, but also in Eastern Europe including Lithuania, individual politicians and public administration experts wish to reduce the principle of social welfare to the constitutional and legal level, absolutising the legal aspect. Dialectic modelling is a kind of opposite to static modelling, or modelling that may supplement the latter substantially. And this is not just because it is able to "see the context". Using the dialectic relationship one may examine such historical dichotomies as belief and science, nationality and globalism, central and local government, private and public interest etc. In the most general sense, dialectic modelling is focussed on the determination of the content, form, contradiction between content and form, and finding of the place of this relationship in the world's development process. The methodology of dialectic modelling asserts that the dialectic relationship is a universal means of modelling of qualitative processes and may be used for the modelling of the processes for which sufficient qualitative exceptionality may be determined as compared with the previous qualitative stage. Eastern Europe encounters difficulties in social modelling due to a distinct transformational nature of social systems of these countries as well as due to frequent changes in the laws governing social security and tax policy. The latter factor also poses problems for Eastern European social scientists in processing the material and in modelling socio-economic development on its basis.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.