Suchergebnisse

The aim of the article is to describe the relations between institutions in the public, private and non-profit sectors that are considered the most important actors of negotiation and decision-making in local development. These institutions and the relations between them are defined as a social network. A study was carried out in the small Czech towns of Blatná, Český Krumlov and Velké Meziříčí, and data were collected in 2007 and 2008. The first part of the article describes the institutional actors, the collection of the relational data, and the context of the three towns that were studied. The analytical part consists of social network analysis. Basic quantitative characteristics are used to describe and compare the social networks of the institutional actors in the local development of the three towns. The conclusions indicate the unconditional significance of local public administration institutions and the significance of other local institutions; relations to extra-local institutions are rather weak. A section on methodology at the end of the article contains methodological notes on Hellinger divergence and SNA.

The article focuses on the academic discourse of social cohesion, from general theories of social integration through to the definitions, measurement methods, and basic analytical concepts. The authors identify two degrees of universality with respect to the use of the concept of social cohesion: 1) the creation and preservation of social order in general, and 2) the study of particular mechanisms of social cohesion (civic participation, the effectiveness of cooperation, etc.). The first part differentiates between different general social theories according to how they approach the question of integration (norms/procedures and structures/relations), and the second part reviews the most important empirical approaches to the study of cohesion at the micro- and society-wide levels and the indicators used in these approaches. The authors distinguish between approaches 'integration from the bottom up' (e.g. factors of in-group cohesion) and the enlarged multidimensional, normative/relational 'good society approach' to macro-social cohesion. In conclusion, the authors propose a conceptual framework for studying the social cohesion of Czech society broadly based on the 'good society' approach, which they further elaborate in terms of reciprocity and universally applicable rules. This multidimensional conceptual framework encompasses the vertical dimension of social inequalities and civic rights and the horizontal dimension of collective social capital, especially its bridging form.

The article discusses the definition & typology of anti-system parties. It is based on the classical definition by Giovanni Sartori, which is in my opinion not obsolete. On the contrary it is still very usable, but under the condition that we stay on the ground of party theory & party systems, & not transfer it to the field of democratic theory. The next part of the text focuses on Giovanni Capoccia's attempt in 2002 to modify Sartori's theory & create a new typology of anti-system parties is very interesting but not very progressive. It seems that Capoccia makes the same, or at least very similar, propositions as Sartori. I think we should call "anti-system" only those parties which conform to Sartori's rigorous definition. The parties conforming to Sartori's wide definition should not be named "anti-system" but rather "extreme." So, we have two separate categories of opposition parties: 1) anti-system, & 2) extreme. The first one is ideological opposition against the political system. The second is simply extreme, radical opposition against the government, or at the most, against some part of the political system, but not against the system as a whole. The second main proposition of the article concerns the problem of a typology of anti-system parties. According to the view mentioned above & based on Capoccia's typology, I have created a modified typology. It correlates two parameters, ideological & relational. The result is five types of parties: anti-system parties, extreme parties, irrelevant anti-system parties, camouflaged anti-system parties, & pro-system parties. Adapted from the source document.