1,720,969 research outputs found
On the Ideological Incompatibilities of Distributive Justice
No full textIn this paper, I provide a broad evaluation of the place which distibutive justice occupies within the space of political ideologies. Specifically, I decompose the concept of distributive justice into five constituent elements: pattern, currency, constraints on distribution, site and scope and show the incompatibilites which exist between operationalizations of these elements and various political ideologies. I conclude that socialdemocracy is the ideology which most faithfully embodies the ideal of distributive justice and that under certain interpretations of its elements, feminism, environmentalism and cosmopolitanism also require distributive justice as part of their ideological cores. I claim that, by contrast, right-wing libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism and monist ideologies are necessarily disqualified by some of the elements of distributive justice and that under mainstream theories on distributive constraints, socialism seems to fall into the same category
Distributive justice and political ideologies: a rejoinder to Stoian
Get PDFIn his reply to my article on distributive justice and political ideologies, published in a previous issue of Studia Politica, Valentin Stoian has raised a number of important points and has paved the way for a more indepth discussion on the concept of distributive justice. Stoian offers three central objections to my arguments. First, he claims that the view of distributive justice which I purport to describe is flawed both because it refers to specific distributive justice theories, not to distributive justice as a field of philosophical investigation, and because it implausibly narrows down the scope of the field due to its incorporation of the notion of a pattern (interpreted in a Nozickian sense) instead of a distributive principle. Second, he claims that one of the ideologies that I present in my article as being incompatible with distributive justice, i.e. anarchism, cannot be intelligibly discussed within the framework of distributive justice since it belongs to a different field, namely that of political obligations. Third, he claims that I offer an unfair construal of the European Left Platform (henceforth, ELP) manifesto by focusing on a holistic interpretation of Marxism and that under a more adequate account, the ELP is not incompatible with the idea of distributive justice. In this rejoinder I will largely concede the latter point but offer a refutation of the first two objections
Etica relației dintre copii, părinți și stat
Get PDFCare este statutul moral al copiilor? Ce înseamnă egalitatea morală dintre copii şi adulți? Care sunt constrângerile pe care le impune acceptarea acestei egalități în ceea ce priveşte felul în care pot fi tratați copiii în familie sau în societate? Cine are ce fel de responsabilitate pentru copii? În capitolul de față voi discuta astfel de întrebări. Voi analiza relația dintre copii, părinți şi stat, în dimensiunea ei practică (felul în care ne raportăm la copii), din punct de vedere legal (constrângerile legale asupra felului în care ne raportăm la copii) şi din punct de vedere moral (cum ar trebui să ne raportăm la copii). Voi începe cu o scurtă incursiune în istoria relațiilor dintre copii, părinți, şi stat, atât din punct de vedere legal, cât şi filosofic. Voi prezenta conceptul de statut moral şi ideea de egalitate morală între copii şi adulți. Voi ilustra schimbările sociale şi legislative în ce priveşte acceptarea statutului moral al copiilor şi a egalității morale între copii şi adulți, folosind exemple din România şi Suedia. Voi examina dinamica dintre aspirațiile legale şi morale la care aderă România în ce priveşte statutul moral al copiilor şi normele sociale despre copii, copilărie, şi familie, care nu sunt întotdeauna în acord cu aceste aspirații. Voi urmări apoi schimbările care au avut loc în ultimele decenii în ce priveşte limitele responsabilității parentale
Distributive Justice and Political Ideologies. A Rejoinder to Stoian
No full textIn his reply to my article on distributive justice and political ideologies, published in a previous issue of Studia Politica, Valentin Stoian has raised a number of important points and has paved the way for a more indepth discussion on the concept of distributive justice. Stoian offers three central objections to my arguments. First, he claims that the view of distributive justice which I purport to describe is flawed both because it refers to specific distributive justice theories, not to distributive justice as a field of philosophical investigation, and because it implausibly narrows down the scope of the field due to its incorporation of the notion of a pattern (interpreted in a Nozickian sense) instead of a distributive principle. Second, he claims that one of the ideologies that I present in my article as being incompatible with distributive justice, i.e. anarchism, cannot be intelligibly discussed within the framework of distributive justice since it belongs to a different field, namely that of political obligations. Third, he claims that I offer an unfair construal of the European Left Platform (henceforth, ELP) manifesto by focusing on a holistic interpretation of Marxism and that under a more adequate account, the ELP is not incompatible with the idea of distributive justice. In this rejoinder I will largely concede the latter point but offer a refutation of the first two objections
On the ideological incompatibilities of distributive justice
Get PDF"In this paper I provide a broad evaluation of the place which distibutive justice occupies within the space of political ideologies. Specifically, I decompose the concept of distributive justice into five constituent elements: pattern, currency, constraints on distribution, site and scope and show the incompatibilites which exist between operationalizations of these elements and various political ideologies. I conclude that social- democracy is the ideology which most faithfully embodies the ideal of distributive justice and that under certain interpretations of its elements, feminism, environmentalism and cosmopolitanism also require distributive justice as part of their ideological cores. I claim that, by contrast, right-wing libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism and monist ideologies are necessarily disqualified by some of the elements of distributive justice and that under mainstream theories on distributive constraints, socialism seems to fall into the same category
Analiza spaţială a competiţiei electorale: Un model direcţional alternativ
No full textBucureşti
2011
1
Cuprins
I. Introducere ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
II. Cadrul metodologic – Teoria Alegerii Raţionale -------------------------------------------------- 7
1. Teoria Alegerii Raţionale – prezentare generală ---------------------------------------------------- 7
1.1. Principii metodologice----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.1.1. Individualismul metodologic ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.1.2. Modele de raţionalitate --------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
1.1.2.1 Modelul “homo economicus”--------------------------------------------------------- 12
1.1.2.2 Modelul raţionalităţii limitate--------------------------------------------------------- 13
1.1.2.3 Modelul raţionalităţii minimale ------------------------------------------------------ 14
2. Programe principale de cercetare in Teoria Alegerii Raţionale --------------------------------- 15
2.1. Teoria Alegerii Sociale -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
2.1.1. Teorema de imposibilitate a lui Arrow -------------------------------------------------- 16
2.1.2. Teorema lui May ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
2.1.3. Teorema de imposibilitate a unui paretian libertarian (Teorema lui Sen) ---------- 17
2.1.4. Teorema Gibbard-Satterthwaite ---------------------------------------------------------- 18
2.1.5. Alte direcţii de cercetare ------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
2.2. Teoria Alegerii Publice -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
2.2.1. Analiza birocraţiei -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
2.2.2. Analiza bunurilor publice ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20
2.2.2.1. Logica Acţiunii Colective ------------------------------------------------------------ 20
2.2.2.2. Comportamentul de tip rent-seeking ------------------------------------------------ 21
2.2.3. Analiza federalismului --------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
2.2.4. Analiza mărimii guvernământului -------------------------------------------------------- 22
2.2.5. Economia constituţională ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
2.2.6. Analiza competiţiei electorale ------------------------------------------------------------- 23
2.2.7. Alte direcţii de cercetare ------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
2.3 Neoinstituţionalismul de tip Alegere Raţională ---------------------------------------------- 24
III. Modele clasice de analiză spaţială (Modele ale proximităţii) -------------------------------- 25
1. Modele pre-downsiene de analiză a competiţiei electorale -------------------------------------- 26
2
1.1. Modelul Hotelling -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
1.2. Modelul Smithies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
2. Modelul downsian de analiză a competiţiei electorale ------------------------------------------- 29
2.1. Premize teoretice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
2.2. Cazul distribuţiei unimodale a votanţilor ----------------------------------------------------- 31
2.3. Cazul distributiei bimodale a votanţilor ------------------------------------------------------- 34
2.4. Cazul distribuţiei polimodale a votanţilor ---------------------------------------------------- 35
3. Critici ale modelului downsian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
3.1. Problema unidimensionalitǎţii modelului ----------------------------------------------------- 36
3.2. Problema scopurilor partidelor ----------------------------------------------------------------- 37
3.3. Problema maximizǎrii voturilor/pluralitǎţii -------------------------------------------------- 38
3.4. Problema potenţialului de apariţie a noilor competitori ------------------------------------ 39
3.5. Problema limitǎrii cognitive a votanţilor ----------------------------------------------------- 41
3.6. Alte critici ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
4. Modele alternative ale proximitǎţii ----------------------------------------------------------------- 42
IV. Modelul direcţional ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
1. Definirea modelului ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
1.1. Premize teoretice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
1.2. Modelul direcţional redus ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
1.3. Regiunea de Responsabilitate ------------------------------------------------------------------ 51
1.4. Modelul direcţional complet -------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
2. Critici ale modelului direcţional --------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
V. Modelul direcţional triplu segmentat şi dinamica ideologicǎ a partidelor politice ------- 62
1. Revizuirea modelului direcţional -------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
1.1. Problema votanţilor dezinteresaţi pe o i-dimensiune---------------------------------------- 63
1.2. Regiunea de irelevanţǎ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
1.3. Construcţia modelului direcţional triplu segmentat ----------------------------------------- 69
2. Dinamica ideologicǎ a partidelor politice în modelul direcţional triplu segmentat ---------- 74
2.1. Importanţa distribuţiei votanţilor în modelul direcţional clasic --------------------------- 74
2.2. Importanta distributiei votantilor in modelul directional triplu segmentat --------------- 78
2.3. Predicţii teoretice privind dinamica ideologica a partidelor politice---------------------- 79
3
2.4. Structura sistemului de partide si echilibrul ideologic -------------------------------------- 83
VI. Concluzii ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 90
Anexa 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93
Anexa 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94
Anexa 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
Anexa 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96
Anexa 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100
Anexa 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 102
Bibliografie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Does Voter Distribution Matter in the Directional Model? A Refutation of the Original Claims
Get PDFIn this paper I demonstrate that the distribution of votes influences the theoretical predictions formulated through the instrumentality of the directional model of spatial analysis, thereby refuting the claims made by Macdonald, Listhaug and Rabinowitz (1991) who argue that the distribution of voters is only relevant for proximity-based models. Further, l show that the boundary of the region of responsibility is not always the ideologically dominant position, as Rabinowitz and Macdonald (1989) originally assert, this situation appearing only as a special case, determined by the fact that the area encompassed between the graph of the voter distribution function and the X - axis is numerically higher between the boundary of the region of responsibility and the point of origin then between the most extreme point of the ideological dimension and the boundary of the region of responsibility. Finally, I improve the full proportionality theorem by specifying the necessary conditions for each position described in the theorem to become ideologically optimal
Drepturile electorale ale migrantilor în România: o asimetrie nejustificatã
Get PDFIn this article I aim to explore whether the Romanian pattern of voting rights allocation in the case of migrants is compatible with the most salient accounts of principles on bounding the demos. I draw on the „all-affected interests” principle, the „all-subjected” principle, and the „citizenship stakeholders” principle, arguing that none of the policy implications stemming from these principles correspond to the Romanian pattern. Thus, I conclude that to the extent that this pattern could be normatively justified, such a justification cannot be provided by the main theories in the literature on the democratic boundar
- …
