Suchergebnisse

Think tanks of the United States as a functional prototype of modern analytical centers are explored in the article. The main factors that determined the formation of think tanks in the United States in the early years of the twentieth century were distinguished, in particular: 1) the economic boom in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century; 2) course of administration of T. Roosevelt; 3) cartelization and trasification of the national economy. The process of formation of the official institutionalized elements of the system of expert-ideological influence in the 19101920 years was analyzed. The types of non-state structures of expert support of foreign policy processes of this period are distinguished, such as: 1) non-governmental think tanks, whose activities are directed on ideological substantiation, expert evaluation and advocacy support of foreign policy; 2) councils and associations created to coordinate with the assistance of scientists economic and political interests of business and the state.The influence of the first think tanks of the USA on the public decisions making process is considered. The influence of the Industrial Revolution, private philanthropy and the Great Depression on the formation and development of American think tanks is analyzed. The influence of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation on the process of the formation of think tanks in the United States is considered. The influence of the Second World War and the Cold War on the formation of expert-analytical organizations in the USA was determined. The peculiarities of the development of think tanks of the USA in the 40's - 50's of the twentieth century, which were caused by a new wave of expansion into the European market of American corporations and banks, were considered. The ideological and organizational changes in the work of think tanks of the USA in the 1960s were explored.The main political events that have created the context for the distribution of disproportionately large numbers of conservative think tanks in the 1970s are analyzed, in particular: 1) political mobilization of business and corporations; 2) political conversion and aggressive propaganda by the neo-conservative intelligentsia; 3) the political mobilization of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians; 4) the prevalence of neoclassical economic theory at universities and among key politicians. The reasons that prevented the creation of non-conservative think tanks in the 1960s-early 1970s are researched, namely: 1) the adoption by Congress of a tax reform law which has tightened restrictions on the political activity of private foundations that historically are major sponsors of think tanks; 2) reducing the resources of the Ford Foundation and reducing its interest in funding analytical centers; 3) a decline in the cost of research and development of the Ministry of Defense, historically another important source of funding for think tanks in the United States.The causes of the emergence and spread of ideologically oriented think tanks (lawyer type) in the USA in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, which openly demonstrated commitment to a certain policy, party or ideology, carried out aggressive propaganda and sought to make influence the discussion of issues current policy are analized. The current condition of think tanks in the USA is considered.It is established that the process of developing strategic ideas by think tanks of the United States is closely linked with the applied orientation towards obtaining specific socio-economic and political results. American think tanks are directly influenced primarily by public interests and have a close connection with the interests of large American business. They are quite different from similar organizations in other countries, with the active participation of many of them in the political process and widely funded from various sources. American think tanks are directly and indirectly ready to participate in shaping public policy, and politicians, in their turn, are appealing to them for advice. ; Think tanks of the United States as a functional prototype of modern analytical centers are explored in the article. The main factors that determined the formation of think tanks in the United States in the early years of the twentieth century were distinguished, in particular: 1) the economic boom in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century; 2) course of administration of T. Roosevelt; 3) cartelization and trasification of the national economy. The process of formation of the official institutionalized elements of the system of expert-ideological influence in the 19101920 years was analyzed. The types of non-state structures of expert support of foreign policy processes of this period are distinguished, such as: 1) non-governmental think tanks, whose activities are directed on ideological substantiation, expert evaluation and advocacy support of foreign policy; 2) councils and associations created to coordinate with the assistance of scientists economic and political interests of business and the state.The influence of the first think tanks of the USA on the public decisions making process is considered. The influence of the Industrial Revolution, private philanthropy and the Great Depression on the formation and development of American think tanks is analyzed. The influence of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation on the process of the formation of think tanks in the United States is considered. The influence of the Second World War and the Cold War on the formation of expert-analytical organizations in the USA was determined. The peculiarities of the development of think tanks of the USA in the 40's - 50's of the twentieth century, which were caused by a new wave of expansion into the European market of American corporations and banks, were considered. The ideological and organizational changes in the work of think tanks of the USA in the 1960s were explored.The main political events that have created the context for the distribution of disproportionately large numbers of conservative think tanks in the 1970s are analyzed, in particular: 1) political mobilization of business and corporations; 2) political conversion and aggressive propaganda by the neo-conservative intelligentsia; 3) the political mobilization of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians; 4) the prevalence of neoclassical economic theory at universities and among key politicians. The reasons that prevented the creation of non-conservative think tanks in the 1960s-early 1970s are researched, namely: 1) the adoption by Congress of a tax reform law which has tightened restrictions on the political activity of private foundations that historically are major sponsors of think tanks; 2) reducing the resources of the Ford Foundation and reducing its interest in funding analytical centers; 3) a decline in the cost of research and development of the Ministry of Defense, historically another important source of funding for think tanks in the United States.The causes of the emergence and spread of ideologically oriented think tanks (lawyer type) in the USA in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, which openly demonstrated commitment to a certain policy, party or ideology, carried out aggressive propaganda and sought to make influence the discussion of issues current policy are analized. The current condition of think tanks in the USA is considered.It is established that the process of developing strategic ideas by think tanks of the United States is closely linked with the applied orientation towards obtaining specific socio-economic and political results. American think tanks are directly influenced primarily by public interests and have a close connection with the interests of large American business. They are quite different from similar organizations in other countries, with the active participation of many of them in the political process and widely funded from various sources. American think tanks are directly and indirectly ready to participate in shaping public policy, and politicians, in their turn, are appealing to them for advice.

Think tanks of the United States as a functional prototype of modern analytical centers are explored in the article. The main factors that determined the formation of think tanks in the United States in the early years of the twentieth century were distinguished, in particular: 1) the economic boom in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century; 2) course of administration of T. Roosevelt; 3) cartelization and trasification of the national economy. The process of formation of the official institutionalized elements of the system of expert-ideological influence in the 19101920 years was analyzed. The types of non-state structures of expert support of foreign policy processes of this period are distinguished, such as: 1) non-governmental think tanks, whose activities are directed on ideological substantiation, expert evaluation and advocacy support of foreign policy; 2) councils and associations created to coordinate with the assistance of scientists economic and political interests of business and the state.The influence of the first think tanks of the USA on the public decisions making process is considered. The influence of the Industrial Revolution, private philanthropy and the Great Depression on the formation and development of American think tanks is analyzed. The influence of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation on the process of the formation of think tanks in the United States is considered. The influence of the Second World War and the Cold War on the formation of expert-analytical organizations in the USA was determined. The peculiarities of the development of think tanks of the USA in the 40's - 50's of the twentieth century, which were caused by a new wave of expansion into the European market of American corporations and banks, were considered. The ideological and organizational changes in the work of think tanks of the USA in the 1960s were explored.The main political events that have created the context for the distribution of disproportionately large numbers of conservative think tanks in the 1970s are analyzed, in particular: 1) political mobilization of business and corporations; 2) political conversion and aggressive propaganda by the neo-conservative intelligentsia; 3) the political mobilization of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians; 4) the prevalence of neoclassical economic theory at universities and among key politicians. The reasons that prevented the creation of non-conservative think tanks in the 1960s-early 1970s are researched, namely: 1) the adoption by Congress of a tax reform law which has tightened restrictions on the political activity of private foundations that historically are major sponsors of think tanks; 2) reducing the resources of the Ford Foundation and reducing its interest in funding analytical centers; 3) a decline in the cost of research and development of the Ministry of Defense, historically another important source of funding for think tanks in the United States.The causes of the emergence and spread of ideologically oriented think tanks (lawyer type) in the USA in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, which openly demonstrated commitment to a certain policy, party or ideology, carried out aggressive propaganda and sought to make influence the discussion of issues current policy are analized. The current condition of think tanks in the USA is considered.It is established that the process of developing strategic ideas by think tanks of the United States is closely linked with the applied orientation towards obtaining specific socio-economic and political results. American think tanks are directly influenced primarily by public interests and have a close connection with the interests of large American business. They are quite different from similar organizations in other countries, with the active participation of many of them in the political process and widely funded from various sources. American think tanks are directly and indirectly ready to participate in shaping public policy, and politicians, in their turn, are appealing to them for advice. ; Think tanks of the United States as a functional prototype of modern analytical centers are explored in the article. The main factors that determined the formation of think tanks in the United States in the early years of the twentieth century were distinguished, in particular: 1) the economic boom in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century; 2) course of administration of T. Roosevelt; 3) cartelization and trasification of the national economy. The process of formation of the official institutionalized elements of the system of expert-ideological influence in the 19101920 years was analyzed. The types of non-state structures of expert support of foreign policy processes of this period are distinguished, such as: 1) non-governmental think tanks, whose activities are directed on ideological substantiation, expert evaluation and advocacy support of foreign policy; 2) councils and associations created to coordinate with the assistance of scientists economic and political interests of business and the state.The influence of the first think tanks of the USA on the public decisions making process is considered. The influence of the Industrial Revolution, private philanthropy and the Great Depression on the formation and development of American think tanks is analyzed. The influence of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation on the process of the formation of think tanks in the United States is considered. The influence of the Second World War and the Cold War on the formation of expert-analytical organizations in the USA was determined. The peculiarities of the development of think tanks of the USA in the 40's - 50's of the twentieth century, which were caused by a new wave of expansion into the European market of American corporations and banks, were considered. The ideological and organizational changes in the work of think tanks of the USA in the 1960s were explored.The main political events that have created the context for the distribution of disproportionately large numbers of conservative think tanks in the 1970s are analyzed, in particular: 1) political mobilization of business and corporations; 2) political conversion and aggressive propaganda by the neo-conservative intelligentsia; 3) the political mobilization of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians; 4) the prevalence of neoclassical economic theory at universities and among key politicians. The reasons that prevented the creation of non-conservative think tanks in the 1960s-early 1970s are researched, namely: 1) the adoption by Congress of a tax reform law which has tightened restrictions on the political activity of private foundations that historically are major sponsors of think tanks; 2) reducing the resources of the Ford Foundation and reducing its interest in funding analytical centers; 3) a decline in the cost of research and development of the Ministry of Defense, historically another important source of funding for think tanks in the United States.The causes of the emergence and spread of ideologically oriented think tanks (lawyer type) in the USA in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, which openly demonstrated commitment to a certain policy, party or ideology, carried out aggressive propaganda and sought to make influence the discussion of issues current policy are analized. The current condition of think tanks in the USA is considered.It is established that the process of developing strategic ideas by think tanks of the United States is closely linked with the applied orientation towards obtaining specific socio-economic and political results. American think tanks are directly influenced primarily by public interests and have a close connection with the interests of large American business. They are quite different from similar organizations in other countries, with the active participation of many of them in the political process and widely funded from various sources. American think tanks are directly and indirectly ready to participate in shaping public policy, and politicians, in their turn, are appealing to them for advice.

Approaches to political risk assessment have been examined in the article. The aim of the study is to perform a comprehensive investigation of methods and applied models of political risks' analysis and assessment. The authors assume that political risks have a significant impact on both political activity and the economic and financial sectors of the country. Given their inclusive nature, it is necessary to use special methods and models that allow assessing risky activities and minimizing negative developments for both government and international investors. It has been found out that the method of analysis and assessment of political risks has gone through an evolutionary path from unstructured qualitative methods to formalized structured qualitative-quantitative models. Qualitative, quantitative and combined approaches to the analysis and assessment of political risks have been identified, each of which has both advantages and disadvantages. It has been proved that the advantage of a qualitative approach is the ability to assess the specifics of each situation, its disadvantage is the subjectivity of the opinions of experts. The advantage of the quantitative approach is the ability to compare different countries and regions by level of risk, using a single numerical dimension of the risk factor, the disadvantage is that it doesn't take into account qualitative factors that can significantly affect the level of political risk, but cannot be taken into account statistics. It has been substantiated that the optimal approach to the assessment and analysis of political risks is a combined approach, which involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. It is quite flexible and integrative, which allows, on the one hand, to minimize the subjectivity of expert assessments by constructing numerical expressions of risk factors (where possible), on the other hand, it remains possible to take into account various nuances that experts can obtain from experienced people from the country, which is assessed. The authors conclude that the combined approach is a kind of answer to the question of how to reduce the impact of the environment's subjective perception factor on the end result, but at the same time to take it into account when analysing quantitative indicators. ; У статті досліджено підходи до оцінки політичних ризиків. Метою дослідження є комплексний аналіз методів і прикладних моделей аналізу та оцінки політичних ризиків. Автори виходять з того, що політичні ризики мають значний вплив як на політичну діяльність, так і на економічний та фінансові сектори відповідної країни. З огляду на їх інклюзивний характер, необхідним є використання спеціальних методів й моделей, які дозволяють оцінити ризиковану діяльність та мінімізувати негативний розвиток подій як для уряду, так і для міжнародних інвесторів. Встановлено, що методи аналізу й оцінки політичних ризиків пройшли еволюційний шлях від неструктурованих якісних методів до формалізованих структурованих якісно-кількісних моделей. Виокремлено якісні, кількісні та комбіновані підходи до аналізу та оцінки політичних ризиків, кожен з яких має як переваги, так і недоліки. Доведено, що перевагою якісного підходу є можливість оцінити специфіку кожної конкретної ситуації, недоліком – суб'єктивність думок експертів. Перевагою кількісного підходу є можливість порівнювати різні країни та регіони за рівнем ризику, використовуючи єдиний числовий вимір чиннику ризику, недоліком – неврахування якісних чинників, які можуть суттєво впливати на рівень політичного ризику, але не можуть бути враховані статистикою. Обґрунтовано, що оптимальним підходом до оцінки й аналізу політичних ризиків є комбінований підхід, який передбачає поєднання якісних та кількісних методик. Він є доволі гнучким та інтегративним, що дозволяє, з одного боку, мінімізувати суб'єктивність експертних оцінок побудовою числових виразів чинників ризику (там, де це є можливим), з іншого боку, залишається можливість врахування різноманітних нюансів, інформацію про які можуть отримати експерти від обізнаних людей з країни, що оцінюється. Автори доходять висновку, що комбінований підхід є своєрідною відповіддю на питання: яким чином знизити вплив чинника суб'єктивного сприйняття середовища на кінцевий результат, але водночас врахувати його під час аналізу кількісних показників. ; У статті досліджено підходи до оцінки політичних ризиків. Метою дослідження є комплексний аналіз методів і прикладних моделей аналізу та оцінки політичних ризиків. Автори виходять з того, що політичні ризики мають значний вплив як на політичну діяльність, так і на економічний та фінансові сектори відповідної країни. З огляду на їх інклюзивний характер, необхідним є використання спеціальних методів й моделей, які дозволяють оцінити ризиковану діяльність та мінімізувати негативний розвиток подій як для уряду, так і для міжнародних інвесторів. Встановлено, що методи аналізу й оцінки політичних ризиків пройшли еволюційний шлях від неструктурованих якісних методів до формалізованих структурованих якісно-кількісних моделей. Виокремлено якісні, кількісні та комбіновані підходи до аналізу та оцінки політичних ризиків, кожен з яких має як переваги, так і недоліки. Доведено, що перевагою якісного підходу є можливість оцінити специфіку кожної конкретної ситуації, недоліком – суб'єктивність думок експертів. Перевагою кількісного підходу є можливість порівнювати різні країни та регіони за рівнем ризику, використовуючи єдиний числовий вимір чиннику ризику, недоліком – неврахування якісних чинників, які можуть суттєво впливати на рівень політичного ризику, але не можуть бути враховані статистикою. Обґрунтовано, що оптимальним підходом до оцінки й аналізу політичних ризиків є комбінований підхід, який передбачає поєднання якісних та кількісних методик. Він є доволі гнучким та інтегративним, що дозволяє, з одного боку, мінімізувати суб'єктивність експертних оцінок побудовою числових виразів чинників ризику (там, де це є можливим), з іншого боку, залишається можливість врахування різноманітних нюансів, інформацію про які можуть отримати експерти від обізнаних людей з країни, що оцінюється. Автори доходять висновку, що комбінований підхід є своєрідною відповіддю на питання: яким чином знизити вплив чинника суб'єктивного сприйняття середовища на кінцевий результат, але водночас врахувати його під час аналізу кількісних показників.

The article is devoted to the study of the prefect Institute in European countries and in Ukraine. Attention is focused on the powers exercised by prefects in France, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. It is determined that the Institute of the prefect in Ukraine is represented only at the legislative level, namely the Law of Ukraine "About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019 and the Law of Ukraine "About prefects" of 16.11.2015, which in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine determines the organization and procedure of activity of prefects, but given the date of its last edition, needs to be updated in the key of future changes to the Basic Law of Ukraine.According to the updated version of the draft law " About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019, the prefect is the representative of the state in districts and regions and in the city of Kiev, they are appointed and dismissed by the President of Ukraine on the proposal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In comparison with the last edition of this bill, the prefect received somewhat expanded powers due to the right to make representations to the President of Ukraine on the suspension of the act, which does not meet the Constitution of Ukraine. The article defines the powers that are proposed to be exercised by the prefect. Taking into account the proposed powers, we can say that in Ukraine it is planned to create a position that at the territorial level will combine two functions, namely: the function of state representation and coordination of the activities of structural units of the Central Executive authorities and the function of supervision over the legality of the activities of local self-government entities.It is concluded that the expected reform in this area provides for the establishment of the Institute of prefects, whose competence includes, first of all, the supervision of compliance with the constitutional norms and requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine. ; Статья посвящена исследованию института префекта в европейских странах и в Украине. Внимание сосредоточено на полномочиях, которые выполняют префекты во Франции, Польше, Румынии и Украине. Сделан вывод о том, что ожидаемая реформа в этой сфере предусматривает создание института префектов, к компетенции которых относится, прежде всего, осуществление надзора за соблюдением конституционных норм и требований действующего законодательства Украины. ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню інституту префекта в європейських країнах та в Україні. Увагу зосереджено на повноваженнях, які виконують префекти у Франції, Польщі, Румунії та Україні. Зроблено висновок про те, що очікувана реформа у цій сфері передбачає створення інституту префектів, до компетенції яких належить насамперед здійснення нагляду за дотриманням конституційних норм і вимог чинного законодавства України.

The article is devoted to the study of the prefect Institute in European countries and in Ukraine. Attention is focused on the powers exercised by prefects in France, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. It is determined that the Institute of the prefect in Ukraine is represented only at the legislative level, namely the Law of Ukraine "About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019 and the Law of Ukraine "About prefects" of 16.11.2015, which in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine determines the organization and procedure of activity of prefects, but given the date of its last edition, needs to be updated in the key of future changes to the Basic Law of Ukraine.According to the updated version of the draft law " About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019, the prefect is the representative of the state in districts and regions and in the city of Kiev, they are appointed and dismissed by the President of Ukraine on the proposal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In comparison with the last edition of this bill, the prefect received somewhat expanded powers due to the right to make representations to the President of Ukraine on the suspension of the act, which does not meet the Constitution of Ukraine. The article defines the powers that are proposed to be exercised by the prefect. Taking into account the proposed powers, we can say that in Ukraine it is planned to create a position that at the territorial level will combine two functions, namely: the function of state representation and coordination of the activities of structural units of the Central Executive authorities and the function of supervision over the legality of the activities of local self-government entities.It is concluded that the expected reform in this area provides for the establishment of the Institute of prefects, whose competence includes, first of all, the supervision of compliance with the constitutional norms and requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine. ; Статья посвящена исследованию института префекта в европейских странах и в Украине. Внимание сосредоточено на полномочиях, которые выполняют префекты во Франции, Польше, Румынии и Украине. Сделан вывод о том, что ожидаемая реформа в этой сфере предусматривает создание института префектов, к компетенции которых относится, прежде всего, осуществление надзора за соблюдением конституционных норм и требований действующего законодательства Украины. ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню інституту префекта в європейських країнах та в Україні. Увагу зосереджено на повноваженнях, які виконують префекти у Франції, Польщі, Румунії та Україні. Зроблено висновок про те, що очікувана реформа у цій сфері передбачає створення інституту префектів, до компетенції яких належить насамперед здійснення нагляду за дотриманням конституційних норм і вимог чинного законодавства України.

Статтю присвячено дослідженню інституту префекта в європейських країнах та в Україні. Увагу зосереджено на повноваженнях, які виконують префекти у Франції, Польщі, Румунії та Україні. Зроблено висновок про те, що очікувана реформа у цій сфері передбачає створення інституту префектів, до компетенції яких належить насамперед здійснення нагляду за дотриманням конституційних норм і вимог чинного законодавства України. ; The article is devoted to the study of the prefect Institute in European countries and in Ukraine. Attention is focused on the powers exercised by prefects in France, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. It is determined that the Institute of the prefect in Ukraine is represented only at the legislative level, namely the Law of Ukraine "About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019 and the Law of Ukraine "About prefects" of 16.11.2015, which in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine determines the organization and procedure of activity of prefects, but given the date of its last edition, needs to be updated in the key of future changes to the Basic Law of Ukraine.According to the updated version of the draft law " About modification of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning decentralization)" №2598 of 13.12.2019, the prefect is the representative of the state in districts and regions and in the city of Kiev, they are appointed and dismissed by the President of Ukraine on the proposal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In comparison with the last edition of this bill, the prefect received somewhat expanded powers due to the right to make representations to the President of Ukraine on the suspension of the act, which does not meet the Constitution of Ukraine. The article defines the powers that are proposed to be exercised by the prefect. Taking into account the proposed powers, we can say that in Ukraine it is planned to create a position that at the territorial level will combine two functions, namely: the function of state representation and coordination of the activities of structural units of the Central Executive authorities and the function of supervision over the legality of the activities of local self-government entities.It is concluded that the expected reform in this area provides for the establishment of the Institute of prefects, whose competence includes, first of all, the supervision of compliance with the constitutional norms and requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine. ; Статья посвящена исследованию института префекта в европейских странах и в Украине. Внимание сосредоточено на полномочиях, которые выполняют префекты во Франции, Польше, Румынии и Украине. Сделан вывод о том, что ожидаемая реформа в этой сфере предусматривает создание института префектов, к компетенции которых относится, прежде всего, осуществление надзора за соблюдением конституционных норм и требований действующего законодательства Украины.