Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  M. Weber
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Relacje między politykami a biurokratami: W. Wilson, M. Weber, J. Schumpeter

100%
Dumbliauskas V., Jakubauskas A.
Themis Polska Nova
|
2014
|
issue 2(7)
80-99
EN
A. Farazmand identifies three approaches towards relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary academic discussion. The first approach holds the idea of total control of bureaucracy by elected politicians. The second approach rejects dichotomy of politics-administration, and speaks for the twofold role of bureaucracy, both political and administrative. The third approach treats the high level bureaucrats as possessing certain autonomy vis-ą-vis politicians. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that already the early researchers of relationship between politicians and bureaucrats provided different explanation of their roles. In order to ensure effectiveness of public administration, W. Wilson separated administration and politics. M. Weber showed the dark side of administrative effectiveness – bureaucratization of public life, which can be controlled only by charismatic political leadership. J. Schumpeter pointed to the negative side of competition among such charismatic leaders, that is, decrease of administrative effectiveness. Therefore, he claimed that democratic government has to rely upon professional bureaucracy, which is sufficiently strong and independent.The article proposes a twofold explanation of these divergent approaches. First, it can be explained by variety of parliamentary systems, which is determined by differing executive-legislative linkage. On of the extreme cases of such linkage is premiership of cabinet system, where the executive power dominates vis-ą-vis parliament. Such case could explain the approach (by M. Weber), according to which charismatic political leaders, who proved their capabilities during the party competition, could and should rule the systems of bureaucratic administration. Another extreme case – the French type assembly government – could explain the approach (by J. Schumpeter) that bureaucracy should be strong and independent, which could advice or even prescribe politicians, engaged into competition, which forces to care not about the effectiveness of state administration but the political value of administrative decisions. Second, the explanation of different approaches concerning the role of politicians and bureaucrats may by related to the fact that societies seek to have both politically responsive and professionally responsible bureaucracy. The aim of politically responsive bureaucracy rests on the understanding of the importance of political leadership in liberal democracies and its relationship with the state bureaucracy. This aim is expressed by M. Weber. Another aim comes from the understanding that implementation of public policy, formulated by politicians, depends on the professionalism of bureaucracy and its responsibility. This aim is articulated by J. Schumpeter.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Potrzeba przełomu. Dialogiczne spojrzenie z Ferdynandem Ebnerem na rozwój sytuacji duchowej we współczesnych społeczeństwach Europy.

67%
Skorulski K.
Filozofia Chrześcijańska
|
2012
|
vol. 9
92-112
EN
The „Tischner-Days” Symposium of 2010 examined the topic: „The World and Faith in a Time of Breakthrough”. The newly published conference papers try to define the situation of culture and faith in western civilisation today. The Symposium participants concentrated their efforts mostly on such terms as „individualisation”, „secularisation” and the „holy”. In this article we try to re- read these terms as the description of ongoing changes in the context of Ferdinand Ebners’ dialogical view of the person. Our attempt is therefore to evaluate whether the processes result   in a more personal (inter-personal) world or, rather, in a new ideology, experienced in „I-aloneness” (Ebner). Individualisation – the key term of our analysis – could signify a positive process (as for example K. Popper suggests), when it truly leads from collectivism with its ideology to individualism understood as a (dialogical) person (as in Ebner, Guardini or Mounier). Currently secularisation (Ch. Taylor, K. Gabriel) stands in opposition to Max Webers’ old „secularisation thesis” of pluralisation according to the individual situation of the person, rather than the disappearance of faith. The changes in the sphere of the „holy” could be positive if seen as focusing on the „I-Thou” relation. However, when the ongoing individualisation is not grounded in a dialogical view of the person, it can end up merely as a shift from one ideology to another; secularisation could end up merely as the dissipation of consciousness in a superficial and impersonal „vision”, and the experience of God could become impersonal as mere energy or radiation. When the real life of the person must be seen in terms of his real „spirit”, we are, instead, dealing here with a „dream of the spirit” – as Ebner  says.What then is to be done? To make our times more human (so the humanity of the person will subsist in the dialogical dimension), the „need for a breakthrough” becomes urgent. We should not only foster the interpersonal dialogue, but also fight against „structural loneliness”, i.e. to convert abstract (inhumane) notions into human (dialogical) notions (for example as D. Graebers’ attempts with „debt”).  
PL
The „Tischner-Days” Symposium of 2010 examined the topic: „The World and Faith in a Time of Breakthrough”. The newly published conference papers try to define the situation of culture and faith in western civilisation today. The Symposium participants concentrated their efforts mostly on such terms as „individualisation”, „secularisation” and the „holy”. In this article we try to re- read these terms as the description of ongoing changes in the context of Ferdinand Ebners’ dialogical view of the person. Our attempt is therefore to evaluate whether the processes result   in a more personal (inter-personal) world or, rather, in a new ideology, experienced in „I-aloneness” (Ebner). Individualisation – the key term of our analysis – could signify a positive process (as for example K. Popper suggests), when it truly leads from collectivism with its ideology to individualism understood as a (dialogical) person (as in Ebner, Guardini or Mounier). Currently secularisation (Ch. Taylor, K. Gabriel) stands in opposition to Max Webers’ old „secularisation thesis” of pluralisation according to the individual situation of the person, rather than the disappearance of faith. The changes in the sphere of the „holy” could be positive if seen as focusing on the „I-Thou” relation. However, when the ongoing individualisation is not grounded in a dialogical view of the person, it can end up merely as a shift from one ideology to another; secularisation could end up merely as the dissipation of consciousness in a superficial and impersonal „vision”, and the experience of God could become impersonal as mere energy or radiation. When the real life of the person must be seen in terms of his real „spirit”, we are, instead, dealing here with a „dream of the spirit” – as Ebner  says.What then is to be done? To make our times more human (so the humanity of the person will subsist in the dialogical dimension), the „need for a breakthrough” becomes urgent. We should not only foster the interpersonal dialogue, but also fight against „structural loneliness”, i.e. to convert abstract (inhumane) notions into human (dialogical) notions (for example as D. Graebers’ attempts with „debt”).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.