Suchergebnisse

"Bringing space back" into comparative politics is a difficult task, perhaps inevitably accompanied by various substantive and methodological problems. This paper introduces the concepts of "territorial homogeneity" (of D. Caramani) and "party nationalization" (of M. Jones and S. Mainwaring), both of them dealing with political parties as actors and territorial space as an environment in which they operate. Our aim is to identify some of the typical issues/ matters (selection of cases, elaboration of relationships among variables) any researcher who would try to conceptualize the relationships between political parties and territorial units has to cope with. In respect of issues in question the solutions offered by Caramani and Jones&Mainwaring often seem neither intercompatible nor fully satisfactory. This may raise the question about inevitably ethnocentristic nature of the "homogeneity concepts". We further extend our methodological note, limiting -rather than delineating- the areas of possible use of the homogeneity concept for the post-communist countries, arguing that sensible comparisons would require much better control for intervening institutional variables- a task which is almost impossible to achieve with such a heterogeneous sample. ; "Bringing space back" into comparative politics is a difficult task, perhaps inevitably accompanied by various substantive and methodological problems. This paper introduces the concepts of "territorial homogeneity" (of D. Caramani) and "party nationalization" (of M. Jones and S. Mainwaring), both of them dealing with political parties as actors and territorial space as an environment in which they operate. Our aim is to identify some of the typical issues/ matters (selection of cases, elaboration of relationships among variables) any researcher who would try to conceptualize the relationships between political parties and territorial units has to cope with. In respect of issues in question the solutions offered by Caramani and Jones&Mainwaring often seem ...

The field of development studies witnessed an important debate between post-development critics and their opponents. The article presents this debate and focuses on neopopulism in post-development, or more particularly on romanticization, essentialization, the rejection of modern technologies and cultural relativism. It discusses the problem of the homogenization of the development discourse, practice and agency in 'development'. It reacts to the criticism from the field of practice that post-development aims at the old fashioned development discourse instead of focusing on the current discourse on globalization and that it ignores changes within 'development'. And finally, the article deals with the political orientation of post-development, its alleged affinity with neoliberalism, the way it uses statistical indicators and its normativity. The conclusion answers the questions whether post-development is meaningful and whether it can remain an important approach under the light of this debate. Adapted from the source document.

The paper focuses on the Latin American perspective on modernity, especially on the Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano's notion of coloniality. Coloniality is explained as a theoret- ical framework for critical reflection of modernity with an emphasis on the forms of knowledge (episteme) and on non-Western, more specifically Latin American historical experiences and perspectives. The aim is to introduce some Latin American efforts to critically understand coloniality as the other face of modernity and to develop a distinctive critique of capitalism, globalisation and Eurocentrism in their historical dynamics, In the first part, the paper briefly introduces Latin America as a geocultural place and a object of social research in a historical perspective. Special attention is paid to the question of racial classification and authenticity. In the second part, the paper focuses on the notion of coloniality as it was conceptualised by A. Quijano and by other Latin American authors. In the third and fourth parts, the paper deals with the problem of coloniality in wider epistemic contexts of modern social sciences and in relation to the notion of alterity and to the question of decolonisation of social scientific thinking. The final discussion addresses some of inspirational and problematic points of this conception such as problems of decolonisation, intellectual dependency and critique, and the problem of conceptualisation of differences in scientific discourses.

The article aims at characterization of the political system in Albania after the fall of the communist regime in 1991. The concepts of J. J. Linz are used. The text begins with the short description of the previous (communist) regime and with the character of the transition. The strong emphasis is given on the analysis of the several axes of non-democratic regimes: the limited pluralism, the mobilization, the ideology and the leadership. The authors conclude that it has been neither classical authoritarian nor totalitarian regime, but the regime, which is situated at the border of democracy and non-democracy and labelled by authors as a defect regime. With respect to unusual values of mobilization, the text operates with the classification mobilizational regime in ethnically divided society.

This article summarizes the main contemporary theoretical approaches to international institutions as well as significant theories of institutions, which build upon those approaches. In line with the existing overviews, I focus on realism, neoliberalism & constructivism. All three approaches differ in regard to both the origin & impact of institutions. Whereas, the basic realist perspective regards state interests & power to be the main source of the institution's origin; the basic perspective of neoliberalism emphasizes the structure of state interests & collective action problems, which result from it. Many constructivists presume that so-called general institutions determine the origin of specific institutions. According to realists, the impact of institutions is dependent on state interests & power; institutions only regulate state behavior in a limited way. The neoliberal conception of institutions infers that: institutions significantly regulate state behavior since they help states resolve collective action problems. According to constructivists: institutions even constitute state identities & interests. Adapted from the source document.

Does higher turnout support left-wing parties, as many previous studies assume? And does communist legacy somehow project on the mentioned relationship? The theoretical discussion is still relatively unclear. This study proposes three different explanatory mechanisms of examining aggregate-level relationship between turnout and electoral support for political parties in the post-communist milieu. The mainstream hypothesis, based on the assumptions of a successful re-stratification of the society and the relevance of class voting, states that higher turnout benefits the left. The second option is derived from the Michigan model of party identification. In this case, political parties with less loyal electorate should profit from higher rates of electoral participation. However, this article makes a case for a third possible explanation, which turns the conventional hypothesis upside down and can be termed simply as "mobilization against the left". The idea is that the more people come to the polls, the stronger the post-communist right wing parties will be. Moreover, I include in my analysis only two electoral districts (regions) that can be said to be the farthest away from each other in their socioeconomic and political characteristics. Such an approach makes it possible to answer the question whether the expected effect is uniform or unequal across electoral districts in one country. Based on the analysis of election results in 1444 constituencies of two electoral districts in the Central Bohemian and Moravian-Silesian regions in the 2010 Parliamentary elections, I conclude that the proposed approach to the issue of party support and voter turnout has strong empirical support. ; Does higher turnout support left-wing parties, as many previous studies assume? And does communist legacy somehow project on the mentioned relationship? The theoretical discussion is still relatively unclear. This study proposes three different explanatory mechanisms of examining aggregate-level relationship between turnout and ...

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

The presented analysis critically investigates the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the area of human security, specifically in humanitarian disarmament. The objective of the first half is to map the existing discourse on NGOs in this area. After an outline of the characteristics of the field, what follows is an empirical analysis of the discourse on the campaign to ban landmines in its much celebrated role of a model of humanitarian disarmament. The second half has a rebuttal of the belief in the emancipatory role of NGOs in this issue area as its main aim. Foucault's theorization and conceptualization of the development of liberalism and neo-liberalism serve as the basis for this task. The provided interpretation rests on three arguments. First, the notion of newness and lack of precedents regarding the role of NGOs in this area is flawed. Empirical material that deals with 19th Century liberally-based campaigns for humanitarian disarmament will be used to support this claim. Second, the image of soft power as allegedly characterizing the relationship between NGOs and governments in this area is challenged. In order to correct such a portrayal, characteristics of the recent neo-liberal, disciplinary regime in which NGOs have had to operate are provided. Finally, the commonly held idea that one needs to study the accompanying processes at the global level is rectified. As a result, it is argued that microprocesses within domestic institutional settings and the move from the domestic transformations of the non-profit sector in Canada to the global desecuritization of human security also need to be examined. Adapted from the source document.

The article is part of a wider discussion on & the assessment of the global terrorism threat since 2001. Terrorism considered the most dangerous & urgent security threat of today. The text focuses on the three major terrorist attacks in recent history: USA (2001), Madrid (2004) & London (2005). The text examines whether terrorism still remains an indirect strategy in the globalization era. The author analyses the effects of previous terrorist attacks in the assessment of terrorism by politicians, looking at the impact of this assessment on further developments in international relations, both on the regional & global level. The article studies the links between the imminence of a terrorist threat & individual Western countries' approaches to the Islamic world & immigrants coming from this world. The author focuses on global terrorism threat assessment at the theoretical level, introducing the main schools of thought & approaches. Adapted from the source document.