20世纪80年代末以来中国关于政治改革和民主化的探讨

本文就20世纪80年代末以来关于国内政治体制改革和民主化方面的十个主题问题进行了理论总结和分析,以期为下一步的政治体制改革和民主化发展提供反思与探索.     

Community mobilisation and HIV activism in Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

Community mobilisation and activism is thought to encourage HIV testing and treatment and assist patient recovery. This article draws on interviews conducted with 60 people living with, and affected by HIV, in four marginalised areas of Harare, Zimbabwe. The lenses of civil society and social movements are used to analyse how people living with HIV draw on, and construct, systems of support based on the ways in which their communities know and understand the epidemic. I consider how neighbourhoods negotiate and assert community and individual needs in relation to HIV and how such systems can develop into community networks and wider coalitions. The article concludes by positing that, by interrogating official responses to the epidemic, HIV-related activism and social movements can help to domesticate formal commitments to international health protocols and compliance, particularly in terms of the intent, as well as the participatory rhetoric, of health based rights.     

对犯罪心理学研究取向的思考

近年来,关于心理学研究"危机"的议论逐渐多起来;母体的"危机"对其分支学科必然带来影响,这促使了人们加强对犯罪心理学研究取向的反思。心理学研究的"危机"主要反映在研究对象上没有严格区分物质和精神、"物性"和"人性",在研究方法上沿袭自然科学的研究方法。犯罪心理学的研究,也需要明确它的学科性质是偏向于社会科学的中间科学和带有浓厚人文色彩的边缘科学。因此,在研究方法上,不能拘泥于自然科学式的实验室实验研究的方法,而应更多地采用社会科学的以社会为背景的实践检验方法;既要注意到人的生物性方面,更要侧重研究人的社会性方面。在此基础上,文章提出了犯罪心理学的研究原则、研究方法和具体的研究方向问题。     

政府自利性的逻辑悖论

政府自利性的泛滥表明,政府在自身发展中始终没有处理好权与利、任务与责任、绩效与报酬的关系问题,是政府自我控制能力弱化的表现。要把握政府的本质,就应该全面认识政府,看到政府官员私域行为与公域行为的巨大差别,“政府人”始终处于“资源人”与“社会人”两种状态。     

九十年代以来李维汉研究述略

李维汉同志是统一战线工作的卓越领导者,他的统战理论和统战实践极大地丰富了毛泽东统一战线思想,因此,对于李维汉的研究亦成为统一战线理论界的重要课题,特别是从上世纪九十年代以来的十多年间,这一研究取得了较为丰硕的成果。本文即根据这些成果做一个简单的分类和评述,以期对新时期统一战线的理论创新和实践拓展提供有益的借鉴。     

云南反恐怖斗争形势分析及对策研究

云南是一个多民族、多宗教的边疆省份 ,跨境民族问题、宗教问题和毒品犯罪问题在全国具有典型性和代表性。在当前形势下 ,如何抵御境外敌对势力的渗透破坏 ,妥善解决民族问题 ,保持宗教领域稳定 ,消除不安定因素 ,防范恐怖活动发生 ,是维护国家安全和社会政治稳定的重要工作。     

泰安市生物工程产业发展研究

泰安市生物工程产业的发展现状、制约因素及优势条件等决定了在今后的发展中,应重视产学研信息交流、知识产权保护及资金政策支持对生物工程产业发展的重要作用。     

Political research and practitioner approaches: a review of the research methods used in voting behaviour research

Quantitative research has been the dominant methodological approach used to study voting behaviour. There is an emerging recognition, however, that there are alternative ways of attempting to understand how voters decide. The academic preoccupation with measurement, reliability, validity and generalisability may obscure some of the findings that are uncovered by practitioners using qualitative research. Practitioners of politics, both in the USA and the UK, tend to utilise both methods when formulating policy and exploring voter attitudes towards these policies. This paper will review the arguments for each tradition and examine the apparent divergence of practitioner and academic political research. Finally, it will look at how both positivist and interpretivist methods can be utilised to complement each other when attempting to build a picture of voting behaviour. Copyright © 2004 Henry Stewart Publications     

基础研究源头创新的形成条件和绩效评价研究

基础研究源头创新能力已成为决定一个国家和民族科技发展水平的核心条件。近年来,我国基础研究源头创新能力不足表现日益明显,为解决国民经济和社会发展重大问题提供的科技支撑作用远远不够。通过对基础研究源头创新内涵的深入剖析,将基础研究源头创新分为重大科学发现、重大理论突破和重大技术及方法发明三种类型,阐述了三类源头创新在科学发展过程的出现阶段,并从激发因素、动力因素和保障因素三个方面总结了有助于基础研究源头创新的七大影响因素,最后指出了基础研究源头创新绩效评价需要妥善解决的若干问题。     

Kompensationsmöglichkeiten föderaler Vollzugsdefizite. Das Beispiel der kantonalen Alkoholpräventionspolitiken

The implementation of public policies in Switzerland is highly federal and decentralized with the main competencies at the sub‐national level of the member states, i.e. the cantons. Comparing alcohol prevention policies in the Swiss cantons, the present article supports the thesis of considerable differences in the cantonal provision of respective outputs. At the same time we can find cooperative implementation strategies compensating the resulting performance deficits. However, this so‐called “secondary harmonization” only is applied by about half of the cantons. We identify three reasons for that fact: First, only those cantons engage in horizontal cooperation that, on the one hand, have an actual interest in improving their policy performance, and, on the other hand, can afford it resource‐wise. Second, today's paradigm of the “lean state” leads to competitive rather than cooperative implementation strategies. Third, the federal administration neither encourages horizontal cooperation, nor do we find a vertical cooperation between the higher and the lower federal level on an equal basis.