Suchergebnisse

This article identifies four main problems with existing research on symbolic politics. Symbolic politics is poorly defined, resulting in theoretical vagueness. Typologies of different kinds of symbolism are lacking. The connection between symbolic politics & mainstream political science is unelaborated. Finally, there are methodological problems establishing symbolic aspects of politics. Possible solutions to the four problems are suggested. Symbolic politics can be given a negative definition -- as noninstrumental motives behind a political decision. Four different kinds of symbolic politics are identified: classifications, principles, examples, & expressions. Using these four concepts, it is demonstrated how symbolic variables can enhance theories on public policymaking, exemplified by Baumgartner & Jones' punctuated equilibrium theory. The problem of establishing symbolic politics cannot be solved conclusively, but some provisional methods are suggested. 1 Figure, 81 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article analyses current debates on securitization theory. It is argued that there are a number of concepts of politics in play and that greater awareness regarding these conceptual differences helps clarify not only theoretical differences but also the possibilities for new theoretical development and reflection. Three conversations on politics are identified: first, how politics concerns action and intentionality; second, the modern organization of politics, spheres and sectors; and, third, the relationship between politics, ethics and science. Where the first and third conversations refer to politics as an act, in the second politics is inherently tied to the institutional or spatial structures of government - the state, the public, the political field, spheres, sectors or function. Adapted from the source document.

Comparative politics is the only one of the political science subdisciplines that is defined in methodological rather than substantive terms. Since, however, scientific enterprises are always and unavoidably comparative, any emphasis on comparison and comparative method is certainly less than helpful in attempts to grasp the meaning of the term "comparatie politics". According to general usage in political science, comparativists are engrossed in political similarities and differences between countries; this lexical definition, however, corresponds poorly with stipulative definitions embedded in the practice of research. For one thing, by performing important hypothesis-generating and similar tasks, studies of one case form a central and integrated feature of comparative politics. Furthermore, much comparative research moves on the levels of individuals and groups, and makes use of countries as contexts rather than units. As political science has matured to be a nomotetic discipline, aiming at the building of empirically falsifiable explanatory theory, the crossing of borders in space and time has become a necessity, and comparative politics is today much more than an isolated political science compartment only. References.