排序方式: 共有29条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
Corbynism, to its internal critics, is a ‘hard left’ anachronism. New Labour, to its detractors, was basically Thatcherism. We argue that these meta narratives, critical to internal identity, are flawed. They are pulling the party apart for reasons of political strength and at the expense both of broader interpretation and longer-term cohesion. Through an analysis of ‘early’ New Labour, we show that how Blair’s project ended is not how it began, and therefore isn’t the whole story. The now half-forgotten history of New Labour in opposition holds important lessons, including for those trying—for the most part unsuccessfully—to keep the ‘modernising’ flame alive. If the modernisers are to win more converts to their cause they must learn to do what Blair and New Labour did in opposition and not what Blair says today. Drawing on the concept of Labour’s ‘ethos’, we offer five lessons from the party’s past. 相似文献
4.
KARL W. DEUTSCH 《European Journal of Political Research》1987,15(6):653-666
Abstract. This article is the text of the Stein Rokkan Memorial Lecture delivered at the ECPR Joint Workshops in Freiburg in 1983. It critically evaluates the historical development of studies of nationalism, and then shows how the research strategy developed by Stein Rokkan was an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of earlier approaches. 相似文献
5.
KARL C. KALTENTHALER TEPHEN J. CECCOLI & ANDREW MICHTA 《European Journal of Political Research》2006,45(1):1-29
Abstract. This article explores the sources of individual-level variation in support economic privatization in seven European post-Soviet countries. It tests economic utilitarian and psychological explanations of variations in support for economic privatization. The economic utilitarian explanation posits that individuals seek to maximize their potential material gains from economic liberalization. The psychological explanation posits that if individuals are generally risk averse, they are not likely to support economic privatization. These hypotheses are then tested using two separate regression models. The first model estimates pooled data from across all seven European post-Soviet economies. The second model is a pooled analysis that interacts country-specific dummy variables with each of the independent variables in order to examine the country-specific effects of the responses. The results show that the economic utilitarian and psychological explanations are both strong predictors of why some support and others oppose privatization in the seven European post-Soviet countries. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
In north-eastern Nicaragua, territorial titling of communal lands conflates particular notions of ethnicity with proprietary conceptions of space to generate new forms of conflict within and between indigenous and black communities, and with mestizo migrants. Notions of rights between competing groups, or within conflicting normative frameworks, become increasingly polemic during demarcation. While analysis of three land titling case studies demonstrates that results are socially contingent and place based, trends include: (a) power disparities; (b) tension between 'traditional' and 'modern' patterns of land tenure and resource rights; and (c) contradictions fed by international conservation agendas and neoliberal economic reforms. Combining critical actor-based analysis with practical policy critique our work illuminates how contestations over the bounding of communal territories contribute to social injustice. 相似文献
9.
10.
KARL P. MUELLER 《Astropolitics》2013,11(1):4-28
The debate over space weaponization is typically cast in simplistic, unidimensional terms, while many participants caricature their opponents as naive pacifists or rabid warmongers. This article redraws the subject more realistically. First, it surveys the question of what systems are truly space weapons and what developments would constitute weaponization. Second, it describes six distinct schools of thought regarding weaponization: idealist, internationalist and nationalist sanctuary theories, and preemptive, utilitarian and hegemonist pro-weaponization perspectives. Third, it analyzes and largely debunks the leading arguments which hold that space weaponization is inevitable. Finally, it suggests reforms to make the debate more sensible and productive. 相似文献