Suchergebnisse

The author analyses Fayola's work in the light of recent achievements of the theory of administration. He looks into Fayola's organic approach and the immanent division of the content of his work into the constitutive and the functional aspects. Fayola's concepts are built into the foundations of the science of administration since they are used as the criteria for the classification of the subject-matter and for defining management. Also, his concepts are so well-defined that only an occasional new concept is added to them. The shortcomings of Fayola's thinking are the product of the limitations of his time and his internal organic approach as well as of the basically static structure of organization and administration. (SOI : PM: S. 206)

The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate and useful in understanding and maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important and more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems and coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors and the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture and structure are extremely sophisticated and that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" and gradual development. (SOI : PM: S. 131) + The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure and democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analysed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture and structure i.e. within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims - primarily in line with the functional theory of culture - that there is a functional concordance between culture and structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, i.e. that "culture is a structure's way of life", that culture determines the structure) and the contemporary interactional approach (in which - primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" - complex relations among various cultural variables and structural variables are analysed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture and structure

The methodological assumptions of the rational choice theory - methodological individualism and rationality - are not generally considered suitable for analyzing nations. Nevertheless, if we accept that the political process is at least partially rational, and that nation building and change is part of that process, this will provide an opening to look at nations from the unorthodox perspective of rational choice. The club theory, as part of the rational choice theory, offers great opportunities for establishing analogies between clubs and nations, and thus for shedding new light on some features of modern polities. Establishing a polity, by the club analogy, entails two basic selections: the selection of the members and the selection of a sovereign territory, that will serve to provide physical protection and material resources for its members. The choice of membership is in general based on the choice of desirable membership characteristics (usually cultural ones). The choice of a sovereign territory is linked to the decision on the part of the members to engage in a collective action in order to acquire the sovereign territory. (SOI : PM: S. 212)

This essay is an attempt to explore structural, value, ideological, and performance premises of partyism. It has been modelled after the methods and findings of eminent researchers (e.g. Inglehari, Klingemann, Knutesen, and others), who have devoted a major portion of their research to the relations among the mentioned concepts. The empirical research was conducted on a sample of Croatian students in 1998/99. By using complex analysis models of the mentioned variables we have showed that the ideological (left-right) orientation is more important for the electoral choice of Croatian students than the value orientations (religious/secular, left/righ materialism and materialism/postmaterialism). The author then shows why (in line with the results of European studies) the party orientation is more important than the values. What is most important here, however, is the finding that the two variables (the assessment of the democratic performance of the system and the ideological left/right orientation) are relatively the most significant variables for explaining the party identity and electoral choice of Croatian students. It has been shown that the leftist and the opposition parties in Croatia can count on the more left-oriented students and those who are dissatisfied with the functioning of democracy in Croatia, plus those more secularly and post-materialistically oriented. The used analytical methods can contribute to a more detailed elaboration of the theory of partyism (party identities and electoral choices) and to the model of political polarization in the society. And this is surely one of the central tasks of modern political science. (SOI : SOEU: S. 178)

The Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new "Rule book of definition of scientific areas". By the "Book", politology is a scientific field in the area of social sciences. The field is divided in three branches: 1. politology, 2. theory and history of politics, 3. political philosophy. The author of this article shows by documents how the "political science" is quite differently structured by IPSA and APSA, and describes 120 years of dominantly American development of "political science" and of professions of political scientists which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines and areas of expertise which are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: 1. political institutions, 2. political behaviour, 3. comparative politics, 4. internationa relations, 5. political theory, 6. public policy and public administration/management, 7. political economy, 8. political methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on development of science, research organisation, renewal of teaching staff on University, and on academic education of political scientists, as well as on internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts, and Croatian democratic political thought and political culture in general. (SOI : PM: S. 240)