Political Economists and Political Scientists ‐ What Are the Benefits to Economists From Closer Interaction?

This paper discusses how a closer interaction with Political Scientists could impact on Swiss Political Economists by concentrating on four specific hypotheses. The first thesis evaluates how increased interdisciplinary interaction affects the incentives of Swiss Political Economists. It somewhat pessimistically posits that interdisciplinary interaction does not necessarily inseminate the work of Political Economists. The second thesis is more optimistic and discusses some aspects of the politico‐economic process which have been neglected so far in Political Economics but could be integrated thanks to the interaction with Political Scientists. The third thesis proposes that Swiss Political Economists should learn from Political Scientists to be more critical of present Swiss institutions. The fourth thesis proposes that Political Economists and Political Scientists should not only discuss the application of economic reasoning to politics. They should also investigate which governance mechanisms can be transferred from the polity to the economy.     

论技术理性与当代中国科技立法

在现代社会 ,法律作为社会关系的调整器 ,应体现科学精神与人文精神的结合。既顺应技术发展潮流 ,吸纳技术发展成果 ,适时对技术进步带来的社会关系的变化进行调整 ;同时又高度重视对人的存在价值的关怀 ,关注人的发展的长远利益。应当把可持续发展作为当代中国科技立法的核心理念。     

基因科技的法律问题研究——“发明”基因?“发现”基因?

发明和发现是专利法理论中的两个概念,一般认为,发明指的是设计和制造前所未有的东西;发现则是揭示出已有的,但人们尚不知道的东西。随着基因科技的发展,人们对是否应授予基因专利争论的沸沸扬扬,其焦点主要在于对基因属于发现还是发明认识不一。通过比较和分析各方观点,我们认为在对待基因是否具有可专利性时,应淡化发明与发现的区别,而专注与实质性审查。     

2004年法律史学新进展

2004年国内法律史学的新进展,一是法律史学的机构设置与开展重要的学术活动;二是最新法律史料、教材、论著、译著的出版与简介;三是法律史学的热点问题研究与理论深化。从中可见法律史学在回应社会与学术挑战方面的活力与价值,也可见法律史学人的努力与贡献。     

美国科技成果转化优先序研究

美国作为全球科技创新大国,科技成果转化率很高。从政府的角度来看,美国有一个精密的系统,来根据社会、国家和城市的需要确定科技成果转化的优先序列。这个优先序列在一定时期内会具有一定的稳定性,也会随着社会需要的变化做出调整。政府通过科技政策和立法中确定的各种保障措施,推动它们的优先转化。这对我国有一定的借鉴意义。     

疫情信息公开的法治反思

新冠肺炎疫情信息公开存在的不足,引发对中央与地方关系、科学与政治关系、公民与政府关系的法治反思。应对疫情信息公开制度的僵化与冲突,须充分发挥中央与地方“两个积极性”,完善中央直管和属地管理相结合的疫情信息公开机制。针对疫情信息公开中科学与政治关系之争议,应合理定位科学家与政治家的角色,促进科学系统与政治系统的相互协同。面对疫情信息公开中公民话语权的保障,应从权力导向转向权利导向,防止政府对公民话语权的不当克减。     

Tracing leadership: the ECB’s ‘whatever it takes’ and Germany in the Ukraine crisis

Abstract

Political scientists face problems when assessing a leader’s impact: how can we know that a policy outcome or institutional change is caused by leadership? This article argues that in addition to relying on comparisons and counterfactuals, we need to trace the causal mechanisms by which leadership affects outcomes. Therefore, the article proposes a way to trace leadership and applies it to two cases of EU crisis management: the European Central Bank’s role in announcing Outright Monetary Transactions in the eurozone crisis, and Germany’s role in shaping the EU’s response to the Ukraine crisis. Systematic process-tracing shows that both actors provided leadership ‘by default’. However, while the ECB had to combine the provision of knowledge with unilateral action in order to overcome the eurozone crisis, Germany could use manifold bargaining-based strategies and thus became the EU’s de facto agenda setter and main representative in managing the Ukraine crisis.     

Beyond German Politics: Comparing European Polities Explicitly

The reluctance of British political science to continue an earlier comparative politics tradition did not deter Gordon Smith from steering a path between a predominant false particularisation and a minority push towards false universalism. A comparison of the first and fifth editions of Politics in Western Europe shows the continuing thrust of a political sociology approach, with political and social structures and forces having priority over constitutional and institutional provisions. Unapologetically 'old-fashioned' in eschewing law-like generalisations, comparison's prime purpose is to improve our understanding of individual countries: in Gordon Smith's case, it started and finished with Germany.