When one considers the bureaucracy a mere decade ago and what it has since become, the changes may be deemed drastic. It can also be said that work including both criticisms and further development should not be discontinued on either Public Administration Nor Public Choice Theory as they both seek to explain and assist in better operations of the bureaucracy. Through the course of this study we can now understand, Public choice theory provided a way in which we can analyze the public-sector organization. Although there are justified criticisms of public choice, they remain minimal in relation to other courses. The emergence of rational choice Agreeing with Shugart II it is also my belief that “Institutional problems demand institutional solutions.” He provided an easy to understand example stating, “If democratic governments institutionally are incapable of balancing the public budget, a constitutional rule that limits increases in spending and taxes to no more than the private sector’s rate of growth will be more effective in curbing profligacy than “throwing the rascals
The first is a "judicial" path, which is a direct outcome of judicial decisions such that the social reform occurs as spelled out in the ruling. The other is an "extra-judicial" path, in which the courts "do more than simply change behavior in the short run" (Rosenberg, 6), they accomplish widespread social reform by drawing a light to an issue and actually changing opinions. Extra-judicial efforts are very important for supporting a Dynamic Court, while a Constrained Court relies more on the letter of the law and rulings that follow the judicial
In order to understand the true impact of the decisions that Creon and Antigone made, it is also important to understand Weber’s perspective. In “Politics as a Vocation”, Weber emphasizes the authority and legitimacy from which political leaders derive power. Particularly, in the case of politics, legitimacy is seen as crucial; he defines a state as “the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber 4). Without this legitimation, a monopoly of force is not enough to constitute a political entity. Taking it one step further, Weber also discusses the three legitimations of dominion over the state: traditional domination, charismatic domination, and legal domination.
In societies with a limited degree of development and inequality -like ours- the emphasis that must be placed on these values of solidarity and mutual aid derives fundamentally from the need to find global and rapid solutions to the problem of the satisfaction of needs basic in extended social sectors, which is a necessary condition for the very existence of individual freedom. In the abovementioned, a series of critical annotations are implied regarding the approaches of several of the authors of the journal that we comment on. A certain one-sidedness is seen in them, as the main concern seems to be the affirmation of the freedom of economic initiative, leaving in second place the preoccupation with the freedom of thought, and the political and association freedom enough
Introduction: While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function. When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s
With their philosophic stance, it is first necessary to be clear about the fundamental nature of political reality. What are the key constituting ingredients of political life? Hobbes finds the great drive for self-preservation and the passions plus a calculating self-interest as chief factors. Locke finds natural equality and liberty plus the great rights. In both cases, the method is to go behind culture and civilization and to discover the original, natural, and basic parts that will form the whole.
Kant's essay is a perfect example of visualizing what would happen in Europe's future (e.g the French Revolution), but his words are important: "a revolution may never bring true reforms of modes of thought". As Kant said, the same happened after the revolution, French regressed into a monarchy and thence the revolution was not permanent and it is doubtful that its mode of thought had been permanent. Reading the article is also beneficial because it shows the way for the bright minds to find solutions to the problems we face now. The only way out, ausgang, is to analyze what exactly it is, and what is to be done about it. The question should be whether we can provide everybody with an atmosphere that they feel like there are no interferences to their reasoning and voicing of their
By focusing on the minister as a mechanism of power, it is evident that the minister serves not only exert power over the individuals but also lend the individuals of interest power. This would not have been seen without Foucault’s careful reading. This view, in turn, provides a new insight into Foucault’s theory—a power system is not successful without the will of its subjects to behave. In “Panopticism”, Foucault expresses his view that power lies within the operating system, thus, resulting in an efficient system. He analyzes this by utilizing the Panopticon structure as the leading model for his argument.
Further effort, power and state intervention would consistently be required to redistribute goods, thereby creating a situation that is harder to resolve. Because of this, theories and distributive principles require a large amount of state and government management and control. Walzer believes this creates “intensified social control”. Ultimately, Walzer sees this “simple equality” as being defined as strict egalitarianism within and across these spheres. For him, this is not only undesirable, but is also practically impossible.
Some claims that human rights are the production of the European civilization, where there are several declarations on rights and claim of individual rights. Hence, there may be an obstacle to fulfill human rights without a tradition of rights.4 One may argue, the universal human rights are being a new capitalism and would intervene state sovereignty, like the advocators of Asian values.5 Another in-between approach is to reconcile the tension between culture and human rights through a cross-cultural or intercultural dialog or a recognition of plurality,6 With the initial meaning of the UDHR, human rights is to ensure the basic rights list and to urge the states' duty for human rights. Interwoven the assurance of universal human rights with cultural diversity, a discussion on the barriers of human rights implement in different culture has been impeding.7 This model of debate on relativism and universalism is trying sidestep the barriers of implementing human