Suchergebnisse

In what may be called J. Schumpeter's process theory of democracy, there would seem to be 2 elements. There is 1st a presumption that democracy is desirable, & 2nd a claim that democracy is in fact a pol'al system guaranteeing certain civil rights to all citizens, maintaining stable balances of soc & econ forces, enjoying moderate clevages of opinion, &, above all, employing competitive electoral & other pol'al procedures for bringing these 3 together peacefully. Recently, this theory has been criticized on several grounds. Briefly, according to its critics, the process theory is more concerned with describing, or even defending, a smoothly functioning pol'al mechanism than with recommending or achieving any particular substantive results. The charges have already evoked noteworthy responses in defense of the theory. Yet, one matter has not been raised in the current debate. If the notion of process democracy has deficiencies warranting lively debate now, why was the theory originally so appealing? An examination of the theory based upon Schumpeter's version, rather than upon that of post-Schumpeterian writers, has the virtue of simplicity & affords an opportunity for abstracting some useful generalities about the theory's role in pol'al analysis. In particular, an understanding of the process theory as exemplified in Schumpeter's work benefits from his thorough explication of the theory's intellectual antecedents. Why then the process theory? It actually constituted a figurative lid on a Pandora's box full of normative & methodological questions about democracy. One can argue, in fact, that the current debate draws attention astray. The real issue implicit in the theory is whether its exponents are willing to remove the lid from the box. That issue requires appreciation of the functions the theory serves. IPSA.

This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. ; The provision of a particle and power exhaust solution which is compatible with first-wall components and edge-plasma conditions is a key area of present-day fusion research and mandatory for a successful operation of ITER and DEMO. The work package plasma-facing components (WP PFC) within the European fusion programme complements with laboratory experiments, i.e. in linear plasma devices, electron and ion beam loading facilities, the studies performed in toroidally confined magnetic devices, such as JET, ASDEX Upgrade, WEST etc. The connection of both groups is done via common physics and engineering studies, including the qualification and specification of plasma-facing components, and by modelling codes that simulate edge-plasma conditions and the plasma-material interaction as well as the study of fundamental processes. WP PFC addresses these critical points in order to ensure reliable and efficient use of conventional, solid PFCs in ITER (Be and W) and DEMO (W and steel) with respect to heat-load capabilities (transient and steady-state heat and particle loads), lifetime estimates (erosion, material mixing and surface morphology), and safety aspects (fuel retention, fuel removal, material migration and dust formation) particularly for quasi-steady-state conditions. Alternative scenarios and concepts (liquid Sn or Li as PFCs) for DEMO are developed and tested in the event that the conventional solution turns out to not be functional. Here, we present an overview of the activities with an emphasis on a few key results: (i) the observed synergistic effects in particle and heat loading of ITER-grade W with the available set of exposition devices on material properties such as roughness, ductility and microstructure; (ii) the progress in understanding of fuel retention, diffusion and outgassing in different W-based materials, including the impact of damage and impurities like N; and (iii), the preferential sputtering of Fe in EUROFER steel providing an in situ W surface and a potential first-wall solution for DEMO. ; European Commission; Consortium for Ocean Leadership 633053; Institute of Solid State Physics, University of Latvia as the Center of Excellence has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme H2020-WIDESPREAD-01-2016-2017-TeamingPhase2 under grant agreement No. 739508, project CAMART²