scholarly journals Three narratives of political science: perspectives of interdisciplinary political studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-200
Author(s):  
Grigorii L. Tulchinskii ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Studies

A Note on “Public Policy”

1973 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Vaison
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Government Body

Normally in political studies the term public policy is construed to encompass the societally binding directives issued by a society's legitimate government. We usually consider government, and only government, as being able to “authoritatively allocate values.” This common conception pervades the literature on government policy-making, so much so that it is hardly questioned by students and practitioners of political science. As this note attempts to demonstrate, some re-thinking seems to be in order. For purposes of analysis in the social sciences, this conceptualization of public policy tends to obscure important realities of modern corporate society and to restrict unnecessarily the study of policy-making. Public policy is held to be public simply and solely because it originates from a duly legitimated government, which in turn is held to have the authority (within specified limits) of formulating and implementing such policy. Public policy is public then, our usual thinking goes, because it is made by a body defined somewhat arbitrarily as “public”: a government or some branch of government. All other policy-making is seen as private; it is not public (and hence to lie essentially beyond the scope of the disciplines of poliitcal science and public administration) because it is duly arrived at by non-governmental bodies. Thus policy analysts lead us to believe that public policy is made only when a government body acts to consider some subject of concern, and that other organizations are not relevant to the study of public policy.

Effect of Crisis on EU Foreign and Defence Policy

2013 ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
G. Oznobishcheva
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Head Of Department

The publication is devoted to problems debated at the Academic Board session in IMEMO which took part on January 30, 2013. The main report "Effect of Crisis on EU Foreign and Defence Policy" was delivered by Dr. Sci. (Political Science) N.K. Arbatova, Head of Department on European Political Studies at IMEMO. The fellow workers of IMEMO – Academician of RAS A.A. Dynkin (chairman), Academician of RAS A.G. Arbatov, Dr. Sci. (Economics) S.A. Afontsev, Cand. Sci. (History) K.V. Voronov, Cand. Sci. (Political Science) E.S. Gromoglasova, Dr. Sci. (Technology) V.Z. Dvorkin, G.I. Machavariani, Cand. Sci. (History) S.K. Oznobischev, Dr. Sci. (Philosophy) V.I. Pantin: Cand. Sci. (Political Science) S.V. Utkin, Dr. Sci. (Economics) V.L. Sheinis, – as well as Cand. Sci. (Political Sciences) N.Yu. Kaveshnikov (Professor at MGIMO-University of Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Russia), Cand. Sci. (Political Science) O.Yu. Potemkina (Head of Center on European Integration, Institute of Europe RAS), Cand. Sci. (History) N.V.Yurieva (Assoc. Prof. at the Chair for World Political Processes, MGIMO-University of Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Russia) also took part in the discussion.

Towards New Architecture of European Security

2010 ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
G. Oznobishcheva
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
World Economy ◽  
Deputy Director ◽  
European Security ◽  
Academic Council ◽  
Russian Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Head Of Department

On April 21st, 2010, the session of the Academic Council of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, took place, where the keynote report "Towards New Architecture of European Security" was presented by N.K. Arbatova, Dr. Sci. (Political Science), Head of Department for European Political Studies at IMEMO. The session was run by N.I. Ivanova, Corresponding Member of RAS, Deputy Director of IMEMO. The IMEMO employees – A.G. Arbatov, Corresponding Member of RAS, V.G. Baranovskii, Corresponding Member of RAS, K.V. Voronov, Cand. Sci. (History), V.K.Zaitsev, Dr. Sci. (Economics), N.I. Kalinina, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), S.P. Peregudov, Dr. Sci. (History), А.А. Pikaev, Cand. Sci. (Political Science), as well as PIR Center employees – K.V. Smertina, V.A. Yaroshenko – participated in discussion of the report. The keynote report and the discussion succeded are introduced for readers' consideration.

: Nations and Nationalism in British Political Studies

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles King
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
British Politics ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Historical Phenomenon ◽  
Methodological Eclecticism ◽  
British Study

This chapter attempts to provide a ‘reader’s guide’ to nationalism in British politics. It explores some of the major trends in the British study of nationalism and relates these to broader substantive and methodological concerns within the social sciences. The chapter focuses on most important comparative and conceptual studies of nationalism as a general political and historical phenomenon, rather than research limited to particular countries or periods. The defining features of British political studies, including a respect for methodological eclecticism and historically grounded research, have made British writers uniquely attuned to the importance of nationalism at times when many of their American colleagues dismissed it as the residuum of retarded modernization. The chapter concludes with some reflections on possible future directions for research and modest proposals for thinking about the study of nationalism and its relationship to broader debates within political science.

Political Science and the Gross Intellectual Product

1986 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Minogue
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
University Departments ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
The University ◽  
Intellectual Product ◽  
Quality Of Research

BRITISH POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE RECENTLY AWAKENED from their pragmatic slumbers to discover a dragon loose among them: the dragon of evaluation. The University Grants Committee has just been grading the quality of research in university departments, and some have been found ‘below average’. (To be merely ‘average’ hardly seems much better.) How were these gradings arrived at? We do not know, but we do know that among the documents available to the committee was a paper by Ivor Crewe analysing the publications record of all British departments of politics over a six-year period from January 1978. (It will be published in Political Studies next year.) Professor Crewe's paper reveals, to no one's surprise, that there are immense differences in publication rate both between individuals and between different departments; his revelation will not enhance his popularity. But it is clear that these events are just the beginning. The dragon of evaluation is on the loose and there's no St George in sight.

Homo Politicus – Towards a Theory of Political Action and Motivation

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-96
Author(s):  
Zsolt Boda
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Collective Rationality ◽  
Behavioral Models ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to sketch an anthropology for political studies. Political science relies extensively on behavioral models borrowed from economics (taking human action to be rational and self-interested), sociology (explaining behavior in terms of norm-abidance and conformity), or even psychology (seeing actors as being motivated by their emotions, neurosis etc.). Strikingly, political science has not endeavored to develop an anthropology for its own purposes. Does it mean that there are no motivational structures that are distinctively relevant to political action? The paper argues that this is not the case. In fact, there is a distinctive conception of a human actor present in political science, even if implicitly, i.e., the conception of an actor who aims at what she perceives to be the common good, and guides her behavior along the lines of collective rationality. The paper aims at providing the first steps towards laying the theoretical and empirical foundations of such a model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document