What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Groenendyk ◽  
Yanna Krupnikov
Keyword(s):  
Political Evaluation

Freedom and the Welfare State: Introduction

1982 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Weale
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Individual Interest ◽  
Transfer Scheme ◽  
The Road ◽  
Education And Health ◽  
Political Evaluation ◽  
The Welfare State

Does the welfare state contribute to the development of human freedom? This central problem of political evaluation has been answered in various ways. Some have seen the mechanisms of a redistributive tax-transfer scheme and the state supply of education and health services as steps down the road to serfdom. Others have seen the welfare state as providing a set of institutions through which individuals could realize the positive freedom that came with identifying individual interest and social interest. Yet others have seen the economic security provided by the welfare state as a necessary condition for the enjoying of the traditional social and political liberties. And again others have seen the principle of satisfying needs as prefiguring a form of social organization in which persons are freed from the constraints of private property.

Paridis de Puteo: A Fifteenth-Century Civilian’s Concept of Papal Sovereignty

1987 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 369-392
Author(s):  
Diana Perry
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Fifteenth Century ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Fundamental Study ◽  
Moral Standards ◽  
Modern Mind ◽  
Political Evaluation ◽  
City State ◽  
The Relationship

Sovereignty—suprema potestas—in the later Middle Ages was not blessed with Austinian simplicity: it was a complex and contradictory thing. Held by the ecclesiastical and lay powers, held by pope, emperor, king, and city-state, few populi were subjected to one authority alone. Not only did there exist a hierarchy of sovereign powers in the Western community, de iure and de facto, but the suprema potestas was in itself limited. It was the extent of this limitation and the degree of sovereignty possessed by the various governments which exercised, to a very large extent, the minds of later medieval and Renaissance jurists. A major reordering of the relationship between the spiritual and secular authorities was occasioned with the propounding of the via media by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Thomistic doctrine did much to promote and enhance the importance of civil government at the expense of hierocratic theories, but, as Michael Wilks observes in his fundamental study of medieval sovereignty, it proved to be almost as dangerous to the concept of the societas humana as to that of the societas christiana. Quite simply, as long as moral standards were applied to earthly government, political evaluation was forced into the theological sphere, and so, to some degree, into the realm of papal determination. And to Thomistic influences, as Michael Wilks again remarks, the civilians nearly all succumbed. Laying their claims very largely upon the bases of Roman law and Aristotle, legists expounded a profoundly secular philosophy; but the seemingly logical conclusion—logical, that is, to the modern mind—that secular man was freed from the theological order was not reached. The pope retained both a unique degree of dignitas and a superior degree of authority; he was head of the populus christiana, and this awesome position bestowed upon him certain ultimate rights and responsibilities in the affairs of secular corpora, even though these corpora were sovereign entities. In other words, papal sovereignty, although increasingly restricted and relegated to the realm of theory as the early modern State evolved, none the less remained a potent force; indeed, as it will be seen, in a particular aspect it fulfilled for the jurist a critical need of the young State.

The Levels of Conceptualization: False Measures of Ideological Sophistication

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 685-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric R. A. N. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Political Discourse ◽  
Actual Process ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Political Evaluation ◽  
Original Measure

The “level of conceptualization” index, introduced by Campbell et al. (1960), is commonly used to measure ideological awareness and sophistication among the electorate. Unfortunately, the validity and reliability of the original measure were never sufficiently examined. This article examines the level of conceptualization measures of Field and Anderson (1969) and Nie, Verba and Petrocik (1976). It reaches two major conclusions: (1) the measures under examination are neither reliable nor valid measures of the level of conceptualization construct; and (2) the measures reflect the rhetoric of contemporary political discourse rather than the actual process of political evaluation. These conclusions call into doubt the validity and reliability of the original measure of The American Voter.

ON THE SOLELY JURISDICTIONAL READING OF NONESTABLISHMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-214
Author(s):  
Franklin I. Gamwell
Keyword(s):  
Internal Consistency ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Human Experience ◽  
Adult Human ◽  
The Us ◽  
Political Evaluation

AbstractOn the solely jurisdictional reading, the nonestablishment clause in the US Constitution's First Amendment was designed to confirm that power over politics in relation to religion was assigned solely to the several states. This article first summarizes two presentations of that view (those of Steven D. Smith and Akhil Reed Amar), offers a critique of it, and then outlines an alternative. The critique is theoretical, seeking to show the incoherence of the solely jurisdictional reading, such that any theorist who assumes its internal consistency cancels her or his own interpretation of the First Amendment. This incoherence is present because that reading assumes the suprarational character of religious or comprehensive convictions, even while those citizens who hold any such conviction believe that justice depends on the ultimate terms of political evaluation they affirm. On the alternative outlined, religious freedom makes sense if and only if the ultimate terms of evaluation are given in common (adult) human experience, and thus the question about them is itself rational.

Group Stereotypes and Political Evaluation

2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 535-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
EWA A. GOLEBIOWSKA
Keyword(s):  
Political Evaluation

scholarly journals The Polish Round Table as a blueprint for “successful” social change? Some thoughts on “liberal hindsight” in the social sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Kende ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Political Transformation ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Evaluation ◽  
Definition Of Success ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Types Of Change

The Polish Round Table offers a rare historical example where negotiations between representatives of opposing political sides achieved major political transformation in a peaceful way. Such an outcome should undoubtedly be labeled a success. However, in our commentary, taking the example of the Polish Round Table, we take a critical look at the interpretation of success of social movements by social scientists. In line with the ethos of social sciences, social scientists value (harmoniously achieved) progressive types of change, such as the change that followed the negotiations of the Polish Round Table. Indeed, when it comes to the Round Table, our definition of success may be blurred by the political evaluation of the changes of 1989 from a liberal perspective. The target articles point out the importance of specific structural conditions (both internal and international) and psychological processes (perceptions of power, efficacy and moral commitment) that led to the successful outcome. We therefore argue that it is pivotal to delineate the conditions of success, if we want to apply them to other contexts without bias. Neither hindsight, nor liberal bias are problematic per se, but they can evoke a form of wishful thinking that, as scientists, we may want to treat with some skepticism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document