摘要:

The study of comparative government is in a state of relatively limited development. Questions are still being raised about the specificity of the subject matter and of the methodology; the enthusiasm with which comparative political scientists went into grand models in the 1960s and early 1970s has been followed by a degree of scepticism This scepticism is not justified It was imprudent to move so quickly towards grand models, while what was critical for the development of comparative government was and continues to be twofold First, there has to be a substantial improvement in our knowledge of political life all over the world: this has begun to occur, but empirical studies must be pursued more systematically and in a true comparative manner Second, the major theoretical thrust has to relate to the understanding of structures, which arc the key elements in the life of political systems; this means in particular that we have to understand systematically and dynamically such questions as institutionalization, integration, legitimacy, as well as the relationship between values and structures. If this were to occur, as it can and if empirical studies develop at a rapid pace in parallel, there is no reason to be despondent about the future of comparative government.

ISSN:0080-6757    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00356.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1988

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The problem which I address in this paper consists in the connection between democracy and capitalism. I begin by specifying a model of actor theory which indicates a number of methods of achieving co‐operation between actors I then review different structural theories of democracy which link up with these methods. Against this background I then seek to clarify—and to some extent evaluate—the arguments which different researchers have adduced in support of the thesis that capitalism is a prerequisite for demo

ISSN:0080-6757    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00357.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1988

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The combination of a tradition of arbitrary royal government and popular intolerance, with the existence of extensive, unitary and highly centralized institutions of government, and with the dominance of government by a single, reformist party for more than a half century would seem a potent recipe for governmental abuse of individual and minority group rights. That is especially true in the absence of the formal constitutional safeguards used to preserve rights elsewhere Yet the Nordic democracies have in fact proved exemplary in protecting civil liberties Why? This article challenges the view that Nordic political societies are consensual historically or by nature, and it describes the limited traditional institutional checks on abuse of individual and minority rights by government Instead it finds the basis for the Nordic democracies' excellent record in civil liberties in the combination of (1) the development of new, non‐traditional institutional checks on government. (2) the use of direct democracy as a check on parliamentary majorities. (3) the pervasive use of corporatist channels encompassing the major oppositional interest groups to draft and implement legislation, and (4) the effective constraints placed on decisions by parliamentary majorities by the pattern of fierce partisanship in the finely balanced parliamentary party constellation These protections for individual and minority liberties arise primarily from the assumption that basic conflicts of interest are a fact of political life and that they should be institutionalize

ISSN:0080-6757    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00358.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1988

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The election to the Finnish Eduskunta which was held on 15–16 March 1987 may go down as something of a turning‐point in Finnish postwar politics. It marked an end to the long‐standing practice of excluding the Conservative Party from the list of potential government parties. Social Democratic Party leader Kalevi Sorsa elaborated on this topic in several campaign speeches and in such terms that there was little doubt he was more favorably disposed towards the Conservative Party than towards the Center Party In a speech which he delivered when visiting one of the local party organizations in Helsinki in late 1986. the Social Democratic Prime Minister even suggested that the Center and Conservative parties had changed places on the Finnish left/right continuum. As a consequence there did not seem to be much hope left for the kind of red/green government coalitions to which the Social Democrats had been committed ever since the mid si

ISSN:0080-6757    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00359.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1988

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0080-6757    

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00360.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1988

数据来源: WILEY