Suchergebnisse

Institutions-organizations and institutions-rules (norms), levels of institutionalization and its influence on political development of political system, constitutions and constitutional interpretation, structural-functional characteristic of the main political institutions (parties, party and electoral systems, legislatures and executive power, public administration, interest groups, local governance, judicial and political communication institutions), variuos types, models of these institutions and activity, interaction between political institutions and their influence on real politics, institutional engineering, institutionalization of the political institutions, democratization and democratic consolidation processes – all these questions were discussed in this methodical book.

Institutions-organizations and institutions-rules (norms), levels of institutionalization and its influence on political development of political system, constitutions and constitutional interpretation, structural-functional characteristic of the main political institutions (parties, party and electoral systems, legislatures and executive power, public administration, interest groups, local governance, judicial and political communication institutions), variuos types, models of these institutions and activity, interaction between political institutions and their influence on real politics, institutional engineering, institutionalization of the political institutions, democratization and democratic consolidation processes – all these questions were discussed in this methodical book.

Institutions-organizations and institutions-rules (norms), levels of institutionalization and its influence on political development of political system, constitutions and constitutional interpretation, structural-functional characteristic of the main political institutions (parties, party and electoral systems, legislatures and executive power, public administration, interest groups, local governance, judicial and political communication institutions), variuos types, models of these institutions and activity, interaction between political institutions and their influence on real politics, institutional engineering, institutionalization of the political institutions, democratization and democratic consolidation processes – all these questions were discussed in this methodical book.

The article is dedicated to the discussion about the notions of the 'political system' and 'political regime' in the fields of its meanings as autonomous analytical constructions. The main arguments are that the 'political system' describes a stable and normal political process and determinate interrelations between power structures and civil society institutions as a complex sociopolitical unity. On the other hand, concept of 'political regime' stresses dynamic aspects of the government activity as a realization of the basic political functions. Pointing to the fact that a political system explains events and relations in the modern democratic context and a regime -- its peculiarities in the process of decision-making, the authors share attention to specific negative aspects of the separate interpretation and recognition of the various forms in the national politics spheres. All these conditions may sharp influence over the quality of the authority decisions, feedback among political institutions as a civic interests representatives etc. And otherwise, this implies that the political systems and political regimes realize an isomorphic similarity for taking evasive action between them. Adapted from the source document.

The paper analyses the change in the level of social generalized trust (or trust in people in general) and political trust (or public trust in political institutions) in the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). The study covers data of the period from 1990 to 2018 that allows monitoring whether and how level of trust in the societies of these countries has changed under democratic conditions. Analysis of international comparative studies shows that the level of social and political trust in the Baltic States remained similar during the study period, although overall there has been a slight increase, in particular of trust in political institutions. Comparing the countries, it can be stated that Estonia has managed to accumulate bigger reserve of trust than Latvia or Lithuania. In the latter, trust in the country's political institutions remains relatively low; in all three countries the level of social trust can be described as moderate, with around one third of citizens trusting other people in general. Also, a very low public trust in political parties is commonly characteristic to the three states. Data reveal a tendency of externalisation of political trust. Though citizen of all three Baltic countries have higher than EU average levels of trust in European institutions, the gap between levels of public trust in national and EU institutions is in particular characteristic for Latvia and Lithuania (whereas Estonians trust national and EU institutions at similar levels). Lacking trust in national governments and parliaments, Lithuanians and Latvians tend to compensate placing more trust in the EU institutions. Though the three Baltic States had a similar path of transformation into democratic system, the ability to accumulate trust in people and institutions is somewhat different. The data show that Estonia is slightly more successful in formation of culture of trust whereas Latvia and Lithuania continuously have lower levels of trust over the period.

The paper analyses the change in the level of social generalized trust (or trust in people in general) and political trust (or public trust in political institutions) in the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). The study covers data of the period from 1990 to 2018 that allows monitoring whether and how level of trust in the societies of these countries has changed under democratic conditions. Analysis of international comparative studies shows that the level of social and political trust in the Baltic States remained similar during the study period, although overall there has been a slight increase, in particular of trust in political institutions. Comparing the countries, it can be stated that Estonia has managed to accumulate bigger reserve of trust than Latvia or Lithuania. In the latter, trust in the country's political institutions remains relatively low; in all three countries the level of social trust can be described as moderate, with around one third of citizens trusting other people in general. Also, a very low public trust in political parties is commonly characteristic to the three states. Data reveal a tendency of externalisation of political trust. Though citizen of all three Baltic countries have higher than EU average levels of trust in European institutions, the gap between levels of public trust in national and EU institutions is in particular characteristic for Latvia and Lithuania (whereas Estonians trust national and EU institutions at similar levels). Lacking trust in national governments and parliaments, Lithuanians and Latvians tend to compensate placing more trust in the EU institutions. Though the three Baltic States had a similar path of transformation into democratic system, the ability to accumulate trust in people and institutions is somewhat different. The data show that Estonia is slightly more successful in formation of culture of trust whereas Latvia and Lithuania continuously have lower levels of trust over the period.

The paper analyses the change in the level of social generalized trust (or trust in people in general) and political trust (or public trust in political institutions) in the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). The study covers data of the period from 1990 to 2018 that allows monitoring whether and how level of trust in the societies of these countries has changed under democratic conditions. Analysis of international comparative studies shows that the level of social and political trust in the Baltic States remained similar during the study period, although overall there has been a slight increase, in particular of trust in political institutions. Comparing the countries, it can be stated that Estonia has managed to accumulate bigger reserve of trust than Latvia or Lithuania. In the latter, trust in the country's political institutions remains relatively low; in all three countries the level of social trust can be described as moderate, with around one third of citizens trusting other people in general. Also, a very low public trust in political parties is commonly characteristic to the three states. Data reveal a tendency of externalisation of political trust. Though citizen of all three Baltic countries have higher than EU average levels of trust in European institutions, the gap between levels of public trust in national and EU institutions is in particular characteristic for Latvia and Lithuania (whereas Estonians trust national and EU institutions at similar levels). Lacking trust in national governments and parliaments, Lithuanians and Latvians tend to compensate placing more trust in the EU institutions. Though the three Baltic States had a similar path of transformation into democratic system, the ability to accumulate trust in people and institutions is somewhat different. The data show that Estonia is slightly more successful in formation of culture of trust whereas Latvia and Lithuania continuously have lower levels of trust over the period.

The paper analyses the change in the level of social generalized trust (or trust in people in general) and political trust (or public trust in political institutions) in the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). The study covers data of the period from 1990 to 2018 that allows monitoring whether and how level of trust in the societies of these countries has changed under democratic conditions. Analysis of international comparative studies shows that the level of social and political trust in the Baltic States remained similar during the study period, although overall there has been a slight increase, in particular of trust in political institutions. Comparing the countries, it can be stated that Estonia has managed to accumulate bigger reserve of trust than Latvia or Lithuania. In the latter, trust in the country's political institutions remains relatively low; in all three countries the level of social trust can be described as moderate, with around one third of citizens trusting other people in general. Also, a very low public trust in political parties is commonly characteristic to the three states. Data reveal a tendency of externalisation of political trust. Though citizen of all three Baltic countries have higher than EU average levels of trust in European institutions, the gap between levels of public trust in national and EU institutions is in particular characteristic for Latvia and Lithuania (whereas Estonians trust national and EU institutions at similar levels). Lacking trust in national governments and parliaments, Lithuanians and Latvians tend to compensate placing more trust in the EU institutions. Though the three Baltic States had a similar path of transformation into democratic system, the ability to accumulate trust in people and institutions is somewhat different. The data show that Estonia is slightly more successful in formation of culture of trust whereas Latvia and Lithuania continuously have lower levels of trust over the period.

Analyzing the qualitative data from 4 focus-group interviews (2 interviews were conducted in urban and 2 in rural locations), this article identifies features of political and social trust and participation in relation to the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. Lithuanians have low trust in political institutions; their trust depends on complex factors such as a big social gap between the political institutions and citizens, negative portrayals of the political institutions in mass media, centralized decisions of the political institutions or minimization of a communal voice. Political trust is low in communities and locations in which local authorities do not support or maintain any social contacts with local residents. Mass media influence immensely citizens' political trust in the national government or political institutions; citizens' distrust is often based on media scandals involving politicians and public figures. Lithuanians' participation in communal or public activities is often characterized by the principle of competition: several communities or non-governmental organizations in the same location often duplicate same tasks and compete with each other. Similarly, because of their narrow activities and social networks, communities tend to maintain fragmentary connections with local residents. Pragmatic, rational and personal interests as well as a trust in narrow social networks characterize the low level of social trust in people and limited communal participation in Lithuania.

Analyzing the qualitative data from 4 focus-group interviews (2 interviews were conducted in urban and 2 in rural locations), this article identifies features of political and social trust and participation in relation to the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. Lithuanians have low trust in political institutions; their trust depends on complex factors such as a big social gap between the political institutions and citizens, negative portrayals of the political institutions in mass media, centralized decisions of the political institutions or minimization of a communal voice. Political trust is low in communities and locations in which local authorities do not support or maintain any social contacts with local residents. Mass media influence immensely citizens' political trust in the national government or political institutions; citizens' distrust is often based on media scandals involving politicians and public figures. Lithuanians' participation in communal or public activities is often characterized by the principle of competition: several communities or non-governmental organizations in the same location often duplicate same tasks and compete with each other. Similarly, because of their narrow activities and social networks, communities tend to maintain fragmentary connections with local residents. Pragmatic, rational and personal interests as well as a trust in narrow social networks characterize the low level of social trust in people and limited communal participation in Lithuania.

Analyzing the qualitative data from 4 focus-group interviews (2 interviews were conducted in urban and 2 in rural locations), this article identifies features of political and social trust and participation in relation to the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. Lithuanians have low trust in political institutions; their trust depends on complex factors such as a big social gap between the political institutions and citizens, negative portrayals of the political institutions in mass media, centralized decisions of the political institutions or minimization of a communal voice. Political trust is low in communities and locations in which local authorities do not support or maintain any social contacts with local residents. Mass media influence immensely citizens' political trust in the national government or political institutions; citizens' distrust is often based on media scandals involving politicians and public figures. Lithuanians' participation in communal or public activities is often characterized by the principle of competition: several communities or non-governmental organizations in the same location often duplicate same tasks and compete with each other. Similarly, because of their narrow activities and social networks, communities tend to maintain fragmentary connections with local residents. Pragmatic, rational and personal interests as well as a trust in narrow social networks characterize the low level of social trust in people and limited communal participation in Lithuania.

Analyzing the qualitative data from 4 focus-group interviews (2 interviews were conducted in urban and 2 in rural locations), this article identifies features of political and social trust and participation in relation to the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. Lithuanians have low trust in political institutions; their trust depends on complex factors such as a big social gap between the political institutions and citizens, negative portrayals of the political institutions in mass media, centralized decisions of the political institutions or minimization of a communal voice. Political trust is low in communities and locations in which local authorities do not support or maintain any social contacts with local residents. Mass media influence immensely citizens' political trust in the national government or political institutions; citizens' distrust is often based on media scandals involving politicians and public figures. Lithuanians' participation in communal or public activities is often characterized by the principle of competition: several communities or non-governmental organizations in the same location often duplicate same tasks and compete with each other. Similarly, because of their narrow activities and social networks, communities tend to maintain fragmentary connections with local residents. Pragmatic, rational and personal interests as well as a trust in narrow social networks characterize the low level of social trust in people and limited communal participation in Lithuania.

Analyzing the qualitative data from 4 focus-group interviews (2 interviews were conducted in urban and 2 in rural locations), this article identifies features of political and social trust and participation in relation to the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. Lithuanians have low trust in political institutions; their trust depends on complex factors such as a big social gap between the political institutions and citizens, negative portrayals of the political institutions in mass media, centralized decisions of the political institutions or minimization of a communal voice. Political trust is low in communities and locations in which local authorities do not support or maintain any social contacts with local residents. Mass media influence immensely citizens' political trust in the national government or political institutions; citizens' distrust is often based on media scandals involving politicians and public figures. Lithuanians' participation in communal or public activities is often characterized by the principle of competition: several communities or non-governmental organizations in the same location often duplicate same tasks and compete with each other. Similarly, because of their narrow activities and social networks, communities tend to maintain fragmentary connections with local residents. Pragmatic, rational and personal interests as well as a trust in narrow social networks characterize the low level of social trust in people and limited communal participation in Lithuania.

A short review of political parties and party systems lets us state that political parties are undoubtedly one of the most important political institutions of a modern state, however the very definition of a political party varies with scholars of different countries. Their functions are also variously defined. Political parties are classified into types on the basis of different criteria. Therefore it is possible to have a big variety of these types. Political systems are also treated in various ways. That depends on the concrete circumstances and the general level of political culture.

A short review of political parties and party systems lets us state that political parties are undoubtedly one of the most important political institutions of a modern state, however the very definition of a political party varies with scholars of different countries. Their functions are also variously defined. Political parties are classified into types on the basis of different criteria. Therefore it is possible to have a big variety of these types. Political systems are also treated in various ways. That depends on the concrete circumstances and the general level of political culture.