Suchergebnisse

In the early days of factory management, when the problems and conditions were relatively simple, it fell to the lot of all sorts of human folk to manage the various jobs involved. Each used his own peculiar method and, naturally enough, it came into general belief that ability in management was an instinctive knack, that managers were born, not made, that few if any rules could be laid down, and that little could be learned by one from another. Even in the earliest days, a small handful of men called attention to the fact that management measures and forms of organization could be better or worse adapted to their uses; but for generations the suggestion passed unheeded.As the problems and conditions of factory management grew more complex and exacting, more men came to believe that the art of management was something more than an intuitive and highly personal knack. Before the Great War, a fair nucleus was beginning to study the art from the point of view of the forces involved, and with an eye to causes and effects. And the war experience of manufacturing strange materials, shifting conditions upside down, built up this nucleus into a very fair working minority.

Recent literature emphasizes the fragility of newly emerging democracies and the importance of economic performance to their survival. The analysis reevaluates this conventional wisdom and tests a theoretical alternative that takes into account the differential strengths and weaknesses of democracy and authoritarianism as well as institutional variations among democratic regimes. South American data for the post-1944 period form the empirical basis for the study.

This paper was published in the journal Political Studies Review and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918758572.

Abstract There are many ways of quantifying the success of political science departments, all of which have advantages and disadvantages. The most relevant international rankings consider factors such as research quality, research quantity, or academic reputation. None of the established rankings consider how frequently departments place their alumni into the academic job market. As this criterion should arguably be among the most important ones for prospective graduate students, this paper analyzes original data on the educational background of faculty members ( N = 3548) at highly reputable political science departments in North America and Europe to create an up-to-date ranking based on academic placement records. The insights from this article provide guidance to undergraduate and graduate students when considering different options for the pursuit of a Ph.D., and hopefully also motivate departments to place greater significance on their placement records through increased transparency. In addition, the data highlights the large gender gap in placement success across all departments.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS PLAGUED POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS FOR GENERATIONS. IN RECENT YEARS, HOWEVER, ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AMONG COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES APPEARS TO HAVE REACHED EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS. CHEATING ON MAJOR EXAMINATIONS HAS BECOME HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED AND THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PLAGIARIZED TERM PAPERS IS NOW A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS. POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS CAN THEREFORE NO LONGER ASSUME THAT TRADITIONAL METHODS OF TESTING AND GRADING ARE VALID NEW METHODS OF DETECTING AND PREVENTING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY MUST BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED IF GRADES ARE TO HAVE ANY MEANING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF OUR DISCIPLINE WITH SOME IMPORTANT GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. FIRST, THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM IS EXAMINED AND SOME OF THE PRESSURES AND SITUATIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO DISHONEST BEHAVIOR ARE IDENTIFIED. AND SECOND, SOME SPECIFIC TIPS ARE OFFERED TO HELP AVERT DISHONEST STUDENT BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE. SPECIAL ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO CLASSROOM LOGISTICS, TEST CONSTRUCTION, AND FACULTY DEMEANOR

Democracy is more than just another brake or booster for the economy. We argue that there are significant indirect effects of democracy on growth through public health and education. Where economists use life expectancy and education as proxies for human capital, we expect democracy will be an important determinant of the level of public services manifested in these indicators. In addition to whatever direct effect democracy may have on growth, we predict an important indirect effect through public policies that condition the level of human capital in different societies. We conduct statistical investigations into the direct and indirect effects of democracy on growth using a data set consisting of a 30‐year panel of 128 countries. We find that democracy has no statistically significant direct effect on growth. Rather, we discover that the effect of democracy is largely indirect through increased life expectancy in poor countries and increased secondary education in nonpoor countries.

AbstractThe world order is undergoing tumultuous changes amid the Sino–US trade war and a global pandemic. During these epochal times for political science, The American school of social sciences needs an intellectual revolution and a repositioning of the research agenda for political science. Comparative political studies must shift their focus from their traditional role of comparison of political institutions to that of state governance models, as the former can no longer advance new knowledge in political science while the latter represents a greater challenge for such studies. Likewise, studies of international relations in the traditional sense should take a step further and explore studies of world politics, i.e., studies of international relations and world order as shaped by institutional changes triggered by political trends within certain countries. The research approach of historical political science is indispensable, whether it is comparison of state governance models or of world politics.