Suchergebnisse

According to Russell Hardin, the rational choice approach to politics offers "devastating theoretical claims for any conception of democracy that implies a minimum degree of coherence of collective choice, information & participation." This essay argues that such conclusion is misplaced. The author discusses two classes of results, derived respectively from social choice theory & game theory, both of them pointing to a gap between individual & collective rationality. These theoretical results are better understood as benchmarks against which comparing alternative explanations of political outcomes. For instance, disequilibrium results from social choice theory imply that political outcomes cannot be explained only on the basis of individual preferences, but also on the basis of the rules aggregating them. The downsian paradoxes -- complete convergence of candidates/parties, voters' rational abstention & rational ignorance -- are a starting point for more complete explanations of electoral competition & electoral participation. Finally, the game theoretical analysis of collective action problems can provide useful insights in order to understand classic problems in democratic theory, such as transition to democracy & democratic stability. In short, while many results of the rational approach to politics are better interpreted as limitative theorems, ignoring them would make analysis of democracy much poorer. References. Adapted from the source document.

The ceremony of conferring a doctor honoris causa degree in economics, politics, & international institutions on Amartya Sen, held at the U of Pavia on 17 June 2005, is related. The opening speech by this university's rector, Roberto Schmid, is followed by Enrica Chiappero Martinetti & Salvatore Veca, who present the conferee's scholarly contributions; the former's laudatio (laudation) recognizes him as a laureate of the Nobel Prize in economics for 1998 & outlines his theory of social choices, conception of human development, & research in the relationship between human rights & democracy. In his acceptance lecture, Sen discusses the treatment of persons with physical or mental disability in theories of ethics & justice. He critiques utilitarianism, the opulence-based approach, & John Rawls's (1971) theory of justice, pointing out their shortcomings in addressing the problem of fairness in the treatment of the disabled in contemporary societies. It is argued that the neglect of this issue by the main schools of thought in theories of justice resulted in biased practical policies & inaction in fulfilling the social obligation toward the disabled. Distinguishing between earning handicap & conversion (ie, the ability to convert income & resources into good living) handicap, the disabled are argued to be severely impaired by the combination of the two. References. Z. Dubiel

In this focus article the book Making Social Sciences More Scientific by Rein Taagepera is discussed. The book proposes an innovative approach to quantitative modelling, the "quantitatively predictive logical modeling". In the first contribution, the originality of this approach is discussed, through a comparison with three traditional methodological perspectives: qualitative research; rational- choice modeling; empirically-oriented quantitative research. Then, the potential of Taagepera's approach is evaluated with respect to the problem of the relationship between concepts and signs. In this regard, the non-linear, theoretically-driven construction of mathematical models advocated by Taagepera could provide a far more accurate operationalization of the conceptual models developed in the social sciences, which often feature non-linear relationships. Finally, the possibility of integrating Taagepera's suggestion with the traditional quantitative approach -- based on the generalized linear model -- is discussed, by pointing out potential problems and possible solutions. In the second contribution, Taagepera's critique of the prevalent approach to quantitative analysis of social phenomena is illustrated and commented, along with his proposal to adopt quantitatively predictive logical models as the basic analytical tool of the social sciences. Then, it is argued that, though based on sound arguments, Taagepera's critique of generalized linear regression models is somewhat too severe, since it overlooks some of regression's analytical best strengths. Adapted from the source document.