Model of Republican Government in Rousseau’s Works: A historical and institutional approach to “A Democratic Government Wisely Tempered”

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-39
Author(s):  
Sue-Woong Ohrr
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Government ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Republican Government

Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan P. Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Resistance To Change ◽  
New Institutionalism ◽  
Democratic Government ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Democratic Change ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Opposite View

While it is commonplace to argue that political institutions are a source of inertia and resistance to change and the New Institutionalism is unable to explain change, this paper takes the opposite view.First, the problem of change is reformulated and it is observed that institutions have a role in generating both order and change and in balancing the two.Second, the concepts of institution and institutionalization are elaborated.Third, institutional sources of change and continuity are explored.Fourth, some implications for how democratic change and order can be conceived are spelled out, and,finally, some future challenges are suggested.

Thomas Jefferson and the Science of Republican Government

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Klinghard ◽  
Dustin Gish
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Republican Government

Removing of the Administrative Barriers in the Economy (the Conditions and Possibilities of Global Institutional Transformation)

2003 ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kryuchkova
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Transformation ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Formal Procedures

The existing trend to increase the administrative barriers in Russia is analyzed in the article. The factors of stable reproduction of the administrative barriers and the possibilities of their destruction are examined. The general institutional approach to overcoming administrative barriers is formulated. The recommendations for the debureaucratization policy are elaborated on the basis of the analysis of formal procedures and regulation forms and instruments in Australia.

URGENSI EVALUASI PEMBELAJARAN DALAM PENDIDIKAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-69
Author(s):  
Moh Fachri
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Learning Process ◽  
Learning Objectives ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Professional Educators ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Learning Evaluation ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Evaluation Of Learning

Learning process is the most important part in education as an effort to mature learners, The success of the learning process becomes a benchmark achievement of learning objectives. To know the achievement of the success of learning objectives, it must be done evaluation / assessment. In particular the purpose of evaluation to determine the progress of learning outcomes of learners after following the learning, as well as to determine the level of effectiveness and efficiency of methods, strategies that teachers use in learning. Evaluation of learning has an important and strategic meaning in education, because the learning process becomes meaningful, as well as its evaluation results can be used as a basis to determine the next step, for teachers, principals, institutions, parents, and government. The importance of learning evaluation can be seen from the approach of the learning process, the characteristics of professional educators, and the institutional approach, but it can also be seen from its purpose, function and principles and the validity and reliability of its evaluation tool.

Does Global Justice Require More than Just Global Institutions?

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-31
Author(s):  
Kok-Chor Tan
Keyword(s):  
Global Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Global Institutions ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
The One ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Strong Reading

The ‘institutional approach’ to justice holds that persons’ responsibility of justice is primarily to support, maintain, and comply with the rules of just institutions. Within the rules of just institutions, so long as their actions do not undermine these background institutions, individuals have no further responsibilities of justice. But what does the institutional approach say in the non-ideal context where just institutions are absent, such as in the global case? One reading of the institutional approach, in this case, is that our duties are primarily to create just institutions, and that when we are doing our part in this respect, we may legitimately pursue other personal or associational ends. This ‘strong’ reading of our institutional duty takes it to be both a necessary and sufficient duty of justice of individuals that they do their part to establish just arrangements. But how plausible is this? On the one hand this requirement seems overly inflexible; on the other it seems overly lax. I clarify the motivation and context of this reading of the institutional duty, and suggest that it need not be as implausible as it seems.

Structuralism’s casus. Article second

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 82-93
Author(s):  
Vladimir A. Martynov
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Opposite Pole ◽  
Constructivist Model

This article concludes the series of publications on structuralism. In the three previous articles, the hypothesis that structuralism cannot be understood and appreciated outside of what can be called “modern humanism” was first expressed and substantiated. In this article, structuralism, understood in its ontogeny and phylogeny, is related to the horizon of modern epistemology and philosophy of science. Moreover, modern epistemological models must themselves be taken seriously, i. e. methods of modern comparative epistemology. Thus, the map of theories of structuralism is more complicated to see than with a strictly institutional approach. One of the poles of this whole is radically constructivist models (the most complete constructivist model of structuralism today is the concept of N. Poselyagin). The opposite pole is the realistic understanding of structuralism proposed in this series of publications. A number of models reveal fundamental complexity, revealing a realistic background under the layer of constructivist rhetoric. Thus, the theory of structuralism of the greatest epistemologist and methodologist of science P. Serio turns out to be dual. Corrections to the archeology of M. Foucault’s knowledge inevitably lead his theory to the realistic pole.

Knowledge Commons

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Community Management ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Informal Governance ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Commons Institutions

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document