The study employs the network approach to the problem of international migration. The international migration is represented as a network (or weighted directed graph) where the nodes correspond to countries and the edges correspond to migration flows. The study reveals a set of critical or central elements in the network. Various existing centrality measures were calculated and several long-range interaction centrality (LRIC) were designed. The results are based on the United Nations International Migration Flows Database (version 2008, 2015) that provides the annual dyadic estimates of migration flows between countries.
The article presents a systematic review of various approaches to the definition and method of studying value orientations, the connection of values and social action. The authors analyze the relationship between various sociodemographic groups and their value orientations. On the basis of data obtained after conducting sociological research in Russia, an analysis has been made of the relationship between respondents' value orientations and their political preferences. In addition, the most characteristic value orientations for the electorate of the most prominent modern politicians have been investigated. When using the Schwartz system, it turns out that the electorate most committed to the values of conservation and at the same time the least committed to the values of self-enhancement belongs to Sergey Baburin and Gennady Zyuganov. At the other pole one finds Ksenia Sobchak and especially Aleksei Navalny, whose supporters are characterized by both the maximum values of the index of commitment to the values of openness to change, and the maximum values of the index of commitment to the values of self-enhancement. An intermediate position is occupied by the electorate of Vladimir Putin, Gregory Yavlinsky, Dmitry Medvedev, Pavel Grudinin, Boris Titov, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, but at the same time the electorate of Putin, Yavlinsky and Medvedev is inclined towards values of conservation, and the electorate of Grudinin, Titov and Zhirinovsky is towards values of openness to change. Using Inglehart system, politicians have been subdivided into two main clusters on the basis of value orientations of their electorate at the 2018 presidential elections: a class of candidates whose electorate adheres more to materialist values of survival and traditional religious values and a class whose electorate is more committed to secularrational values and postmaterialist values of self-expression.
Article tries to shed light upon the political theory functional contradiction through the dichotomy of humanistic and post-structuralist tradition. In the nutshell, there is a question about the status and the process of legitimization of the scientific knowledge and its corresponding consequences. Several sections of the articles are dedicated to external and internal aspects of the methodological reflection within political theory domain. Conclusion is drawn on a possible way of political theory development in the future.
How is power and authority distributed in the European Union? What role does state capacity play in the framework of relations between the levels of authority in the EU? In this article, we seek to answer these questions by addressing two key approaches to the analysis of the European Union as a multi-level system of governance: the structural-actor approach and the approach of consociational democracy. While supporters of the structural-actor approach perceive the EU as a hierarchical system, where one of the levels of power is always in a position of dominance and can dictate its rules of the game, the theoreticians of European consociationalism are more interested in the issues related to the decision-making process under the conditions of “grand coalitions”, horizontal and vertical accountability and democratic deficit.
The article examines the stability of electoral support of political parties and candidates on subnational elections in Moscow. This study investigates the dynamic of voter turnout on different levels and types of elections, as well as the stability of the reproduction of electoral voting patterns based on a comparative analysis of federal, regional and municipal campaigns. The research covers the elections which took place between 2003-2018 in Moscow. The results of research suggest that the drop of voter turnout on subnational level of elections occurs due to a decrease of electoral support of «United Russia», that explained by the larger size of their electorate. The study also shows that opposition mobilization could be effective on the municipal level. Basically, the analysis showed that campaigns of mayoral election can be described by widespread pro-government mobilization in the absence of strong competitors to incumbent, or by consolidating the electorate of systemic and non-systemic opposition around an active opposition leader. Consequently, electoral authoritarianism is not able to restrain the protest mobilization in the existence of consolidation leader on the mayoral elections.
The article analyses various aspects of impact that elections produce on political institutions. In includes “ritual” function of elections which produce a political nation, legitimation of all political institutions and professional political class. Another function is representation of citizens in the political domain by virtue of intermediary political institutions. Yet another, is building a system of checks and balances and conflict management. Besides, the article discusses the problem of accountability of elected officials and the phenomenon of modern populism and other new trends in relations between parties and voters. The concluding chapter briefly touches upon the specific features and effects of elections in the Russian political system.
This article deals both with the problems related to the state, statehood and stateness and to the regime changes, democracy and democratization. The latter aspect nowadays has come to foreground of comparative political studies, especially if we are talking about up-to-date political changes and political development.
The article attempts to test empirically Samuel Huntington's well-known thesis about the relationship between democracy and political science based on data obtained during a survey "Professionalization and Social Impact of European Political Science" (ProSEPS) conducted among political scientists from 39 countries. The authors find significant relationships between the level of democracy and some parameters of political science; primarily, with the presence of political science in the public field. In the final section of the article hypotheses are put forward about other possible explanations of cross-country differences in the development of political science.
This article discusses the phenomenon of state capacity, the different approaches to its conceptualization used by political scientists over the last decades, various ways of measuring this concept, as well as the whole spectrum of the existing theories about the relationship between state capacity and dynamics of regime transformation. In the empirical part of the article, the authors cluster trajectory changes in the characteristics of state capacity and the political regime in the majority of countries in the world for 1992–2011, then match trajectories between themselves and formulate conclusions about the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses about the relationship of the political regime and state capacity. In particular, there are quite a lot of refutations of the hypothesis about the primacy of the state capacity before the democratization and the impossibility of successful development of state capacity under autocratic regimes. However, the hypothesis about the possibility of parallel development of democracy and state capacity, rather, is confirmed.
The article is devoted to analysis of discursive practices of public representation and discussion of the political course of “modernization” announced by president Dmitry Medvedev. It is focused at interpretations of the idea of modernization by the leading Russian politicians as well as at the role of the notions about collective past, present and future in its ideological justification and contestation.
Today in political science we are used to distinguish between methods that are qualitative and quantitative. And while the quantitative techniques are based on the apparatus of mathematics, the qualitative ones don’t seem to have any basic methodological framework of this kind. It is suggested to consider semiotics in this role of the «mathematics» of social sciences. The consideration of general semiotic principles and distinction of semiotic research methods can provide political science with intradisciplinary consistency and transdisciplinary integration.
The paper applies the Duhem-Quine thesis to conventional quantitative methods in political science. As a result, the discussion of methodological problems associated with these methods is implanted into the epistemological issues highlighted by the Duhem-Quine thesis. Special attention is devoted to the widespread research practices, such as 1) null hypothesis significance testing, 2) large-N analysis and 3) dealing with phenomena with a very broad and general character. The paper argues that, partly due to these practices, some epistomological problems are aggravated: a) structural underdetermination of theories is exacerbated; b) the value of new theories tested via old data becomes unclear and doubtful; c) the convention about the boundary between theories and facts is harder to achieve. Some questions about the conditions of the progress in political science are posed.