论新世纪加强党的执政能力建设的时代背景、科学依据及基本精神

加强党的执政能力建设,是进入新世纪以后国际国内的大形势对中国共产党提出的新要求。加强执政能力建设的科学依据主要有四点:一是巩固中国共产党执政地位的根本需要;二是实现党在新世纪历史使命和奋斗目标的客观需要;三是新世纪全面推进党的建设新的伟大工程的现实需要;四是提高党员领导干部能力素质的迫切需要。加强党的执政能力建设的基本精神包括:首先必须坚持正确的指导思想和总体目标;重点必须明确和掌握执政能力的基本任务和基本内容;根本措施就是全面推进党的建设新的伟大工程。     

落实科学发展观推动农村全面发展--以山东省济宁市为例

大力发展农村经济,必须树立和落实科学发展观,把农业发展放在国民经济发展的全局中统筹考虑,把农村繁荣放在社会全局当中统筹规划,构建农村经济社会快速健康发展的长效机制。     

基层政府履行社会管理职能中存在的问题及其对策

目前我国政府在履行社会管理职能中存在的问题主要有:忽视经济与社会的全面协调发展,仍然习惯于单向专制型行政管理模式,在发展环境建设和营造上“缺位,”在管理社会事业中政事不分。我们的对策应该是:实施经济与社会协调发展的战略,推进管理方式创新,加强市场经济法制建设,树立以人为本的科学发展观。     

人类发展理念的三次飞跃：自然地球观、社会经济观和科学发展观

以经济学家李嘉图、马尔萨斯为代表的自然地球观和以经济学家舒尔茨为代表的社会经济观,均从不同角度提出了有关人类经济社会发展和可持续发展的问题,都具有“里程碑”的性质。而科学发展观是我们党在吸收人类发展理论精华的基础上,提出的新阶段社会主义现代化建设的指导思想,是人类发展理念的又一次重大飞跃。因此,我们应当加深对党的科学发展观的理解,进一步牢固树立和认真落实科学发展观。     

当前我国科学理性精神存在的主要问题

改革开放以来,我国过分重视对西方科学技术层面的引进,不同程度地忽视了借鉴和发扬西方科学理性精神,在科学民主昌明的今天,出现了科学理性实用化、实证化、形式化、世俗化和工具化等问题。这些问题的存在,使我们至今仍然缺乏适应社会主义现代化建设需要、独立自主的科学技术创新能力。因此,深刻反思当前我国科学理性精神存在的诸多问题,对于进一步发扬科学理性精神,形成独立自主的科学技术创新能力, 实现全面建设小康社会的奋斗目标,具有重要的现实意义。     

防微杜渐：从当代中国共产党人的发展之忧看科学发展观之提出

当代中国共产党人的发展之忧主要表现在(1)见微知著忧国内发展失衡。(2)前车之鉴吸取他国发展的经验教训。(3)痛定思痛汲取“非典”疫情蔓延的教训。这一发展之忧,有着鲜明的战略性、价值性和科学性的特征。在当代中国的发展问题上,若要达到解忧除患的目的,必须牢固树立科学发展观。     

Pretend It Doesn'T Work: The ‘Anti-Social’ Bias In The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale

The social constructs and methodological principles embodied in the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS), comprising part of the Campbell Collaboration in Crime and Justice assessment protocol, induce a series of biases in the evaluation of evidence of crime prevention policy interventions that focus on collective social phenomena, such as communities. Applying these principles leads to negative conclusions about effectiveness; yet their inherent ‘anti-social’ bias may induce Type II error with regard to the desirability of ‘social’ interventions to reduce crime. Policy-making is poorly served as a result. This point is illustrated, first, through a scrutiny of the social constructs used, including those that typify treatments, institutional settings and units of analysis. These are seen as being constructed in a way that is congenial to the underlying methodological issue of ‘control’ but that constitute nevertheless a distorted definition of the governance issues involved in crime reduction in community settings. A model more appropriate for evaluating voluntaristic action in civil society is needed. Second, it is suggested that this methodological bias arises particularly in policy interventions and change programmes that address issues concerning the ‘collective efficacy’ of local communities in reducing crime. An empirical exemplification of these arguments is presented with reference to a completed evaluation research study (Foster and Hope, 1993).     

鉴定结论属性新探

鉴定结论作为一种携带科技含量的意见证据,具有独立性与衍生性并存、主观性与客观性并存、科学性与伪科学性并存、相对的可再生性等多重属性,这些特性决定了其适用不同于其他证据的质证和认证规则。     

论科学发展观的四重伦理维度

科学发展观是对党的三代中央领导集体关于发展的重要思想的继承和发展,是马克思主义关于发展的世界观和方法论的集中体现,是同马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想、邓小平理论和“三个代表”重要思想既一脉相承又与时俱进的科学理论,是我国经济社会发展的重要指导方针,是发展中国特色社会主义必须坚持和贯彻的重大战略思想。注重发展的伦理愿景,以人为本的伦理关怀．彰显和谐的伦理诉求,崇尚和平的伦理责任,构成科学发展观的四重伦理维度。     

Co‐authorship Networks in Swiss Political Research

Co‐authorship is an important indicator of scientific collaboration. Co‐authorship networks are composed of sub‐communities, and researchers can gain visibility by connecting these insulated subgroups. This article presents a comprehensive co‐authorship network analysis of Swiss political science. Three levels are addressed: disciplinary cohesion and structure at large, communities, and the integrative capacity of individual researchers. The results suggest that collaboration exists across geographical and language borders even though different regions focus on complementary publication strategies. The subfield of public policy and administration has the highest integrative capacity. Co‐authorship is a function of several factors, most importantly being in the same subfield. At the individual level, the analysis identifies researchers who belong to the “inner circle” of Swiss political science and who link different communities. In contrast to previous research, the analysis is based on the full set of publications of all political researchers employed in Switzerland in 2013, including past publications.