Suchergebnisse

Many environmental and natural resource problems, which have been solved in developed countries with the use of appropriate instruments, are becoming increasingly common in developing countries. Due to poverty, the efficiency of conceiving environmental policies and minimizing costs, are inherent issues of these countries. The aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of environmental taxes in developing countries, as environmental taxes are an instrument of environmental policy that convenes with the level of their development. Most countries today pay great attention to environmental taxes. However, in the tax systems of developing countries, their significance is neglected. We analyzed 12 developing countries, which are members of the European Union, with the tendency to point out the benefits they could have from environmental taxes. A regression analysis was applied on the data series for the period 2001-2016. The results of the model show that the growth of tax revenues from ecological taxes implicitly increases the state allocation in the field of environmental protection. ; Mnogi problemi zaštite životne sredine i prirodnih resura, koji su rešeni u razvijenim zemlјama primenom odgovarajućih instrumenata, postaju sve veći u zemlјama u razvoju. Zbog siromaštva, efikasnost koncipiranja ekološke politike i minimiziranje troškova, predstavlјaju inherentna pitanja ovih zemalјa. Cilј ovog rada je da istakne značaj ekoloških poreza u zemlјama u razvoju, shodno tome da ekološki porezi predstavlјaju instrument ekološke politike koji konvenira nivou njihove razvijenosti. Većina zemalјa, danas, veliku pažnju posvećuje ekološkim porezima. Međutim, u poreskim sistemima zemalјa u razvoju, njihov značaj je delastiran. Analizirali smo 12 zemalјa u razvoju, koje su članice Evropske Unije, sa tendencijom da ukažemo na benefite koje bi one mogle imati od ekoloških poreza. Sprovedena je regresiona analiza na seriji podataka za period 2001-2016. godine. Rezultati modela pokazuju da rast poreskih prihoda od ekoloških poreza, implicitno povećava i izdvajanja države u oblasti zaštite životne sredine.

The author presents a critical reply to Barsa's interpretation of his monograph (Jakoubek, M. Romove: konec/ne/jednoho mytu. Tractatus Culturo/mo/logicus, Socioklub, Praha 2004) & of two anthologies he has co-edited (Jakoubek, M. & Poduska, 0. [Eds], Romske osady v kulturologicke perspektive, Doplnek, Brno, 2003 & Jakoubek, M., Hirt, T. [Eds], Romove: kulturologicke etudy. Etnopolitika, pribuzenstvi a socialni organizace, Cenek, Plzen 2004). Taking the examples of his alleged orientalism & of his (also alleged) idea that Gypsies are carriers of the culture of poverty, the author illustrates that Barsa's interpretation is full of mistakes & inaccuracies. He also argues that the concept of culture used by Barsa is unacceptable in the social sciences & accuses his critic (together with the whole discourse of multiculturalism) of ethnocentrism. Regarding methodological issues, the author demonstrates that although Barsa claims to offer a better method of analysis, in actuality he fails to do so. References. Adapted from the source document.

Demokratski optimizam devedestih godina prošlog veka zamenjuje osobita forma javnog razočarenja u demokratiju. Kriza demokratije praćena institucionalnim deficitima, konfuzijom, niskim stepenom upravljačke sposobnosti da se rešavaju pitanja siromaštva, nezaposlenosti, imigracije, korupcije, simptomi su ovoga stanja. Globalni val populizma najizoštreniji je izraz ove političke patologije. Početak novoga veka rađa uzlet otvorenog neprijateljstva prema demokratiji. Deskriptivni pristupi oslonjeni na proceduralnu dimenziju režima moći ("hibridni režimi", "ograničena demokratija" "iliberalna demokratija", "kompetitivni autoritarizam" ) pokazuju se nedostatnim. U ovome radu autor se vraća klasičnom konceptu "despotizma" i pokazuje normative i teorisjke prednosti ovoga koncepta ("novi despotizam") u analizi novoga režima moći koji izrasta na pretpostvkama sve šireg nepoverenja u demokratske instituciije. ; The democratic optimism of the 1990s has been replaced by a particular form of public disillusionment with democracy. The crisis of democracy, accompanied by institutional deficits, confusion, low levels of management capacity to tackle poverty, unemployment, immigration, corruption, are symptoms of this condition. The global wave of populism is the sharpest expression of this political pathology. The beginning of the new century has given birth to an open hostility to democracy. Descriptive approaches based on the procedural dimension of the regime of power ("hybrid regimes", "limited democracy", "liberal democracy", "competitive authoritarianism") are proving insufficient to capture the new political system. In this paper, the author returns to the classical concept of "despotism" and shows the normative and theoretical advantages of this concept ("new despotism") in the analysis of a new regime of power that grows on the premise of growing distrust of democratic institutions.