Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance

In the last 15 years, agri-environmental programmes in Australia have been underpinned by a neoliberal regime of governing which seeks to foster participation and ‘bottom-up’ change at the regional level at the same time as encouraging farmers to become entrepreneurial and improve their productivity and environmental performance without government interference. However, while experiencing a degree of success in terms of farmer involvement, considerable tensions are evident in such programmes. Drawing on an ‘analytics of governmentality’, this paper argues that while current agri-environmental programmes enable authorities to combine often competing and contradictory imperatives under the rubric of single political problems—what has been termed hybrid forms of governing—it also contributes to the continuing failure of these programmes to achieve their desired effects. As a consequence, neoliberal forms of governing tend to be characterised by experimentation with a range of governmental technologies in order to make programmes workable in practice. We explore two different types of technologies—standards schemes and direct government regulation—that have emerged in recent years, and how these have sought to address the limitations evident in ‘participatory’ programmes. The paper concludes by arguing that while these initiatives seek to encourage farmer compliance in seemingly divergent ways, their capacity to be workable, and have broader effects, in practice will depend upon their capacity to manage the competing imperatives of environmental degradation, capital accumulation and private property rights.     

宪政视野下的刑罚正当性

研究刑罚的正当性离不开权利和权力这两个法学核心范畴,研究刑罚正当性实际上就是研究刑罚权的正当性,就是探讨人们会把什么样的刑罚权让渡给国家的问题,这就需要借助个人主义方法论探究个人的选择过程。从宪政的视角来看,＂报应论＂更适合作为刑罚的正当性基础。     

Fairness, Equality and Legitimacy: A Qualitative Comparative Study of Germany and the UK

The pressures of globalization and shifts towards post‐industrialism are producing policies that increasingly emphasize the common themes of activation and of individual responsibility for outcomes. Such approaches suggest normative principles of equality of opportunity rather than of outcome, and of individual rather than collective responsibility for the outcomes achieved. Does this imply a shift towards a common normative framework for European welfare states, with implications for future policy developments? This article reports a recent qualitative study examining ideas about fairness and social provision in the very different regimes of Germany and the UK. The analysis shows that while respondents in both countries value equality of opportunity as a normative principle, those in Germany are much more likely to argue that an equal opportunity approach requires government to guarantee equal access to basic services. They are also more likely to express concerns about market freedoms which allow those who can afford it better access to health care and education. Real differences in welfare values remain, loosely following differences of regime type, despite the greater emphasis on activation and individual responsibility across European welfare states.     

Framing authoritarian legitimacy: elite cohesion in the aftermath of popular rebellion

ABSTRACT

Protest activity presents a significant threat to state legitimacy in nondemocratic settings. Although authoritarian regimes rely heavily on coercion, state officials must also justify their authority to both the public and other elites. Previous work has shown how elites vilify challengers to legitimize repression, but scholars have yet to examine how state officials engage in meaning work to prevent elite divisions from forming in light of popular challenges to regime legitimacy. In this study, we examine elite framing processes in a case of popular resistance to a 1953 currency reform in Communist Czechoslovakia. Using archival material, we trace the inter- and intra-organizational processes through which officials construct legitimacy claims by explaining and adjudicating blame for the popular rebellion. Results indicate that authoritarian rulers relied on a variety of discursive mechanisms to generate consensus among subordinate elites and protect regime legitimacy. We conclude by discussing implications for research on authoritarianism and social movements.     

道路、发展与族群关系的“一体多元”——黔滇驿道的社会、文化与族群关系的型塑

道路作为人为的物质形态,因附加了人的社会性而使其社会与文化内涵丰富。同样,当前的筑路狂潮与人文视角下的道路研究稀缺之间的现实矛盾决定了道路研究的必要性和可能性。因此,在既有研究基础上尝试构建起道路民族志的研究框架,以黔滇驿道为例,探索其在特定时空条件下对贵州社会文化及民族关系格局的影响,进而探讨国家在不同时期如何以其为载体策略性地获取统治正当性的过程。另外,思想的启蒙与发展主义的助推是当前造路运动出现的核心动力因素之一,而随之伴随的道路隐喻及现代性危险和不确定性特征在此过程中有所凸显,本文也借此对当前近乎神圣化的泛发展观进行一些梳理与反思。     

论新中国民族政策的合法性

新中国民族政策的合法性主要来源于意识形态、法理和绩效基础。当前中国民族政策的合法性正面临着新的挑战,应从推进民族理论创新、加强马克思主义民族观教育、完善民族政策、将民族政策提升为民族法规等方面入手,巩固民族政策的合法性基础,使民族政策赢得社会的共同认可和广泛支持。     

伊朗政治合法性与宗教合法性之构建

伊朗政治合法性和宗教合法性的构建一直受到重视,因为这有利于社会的长治久安。其政治合法性和宗教合法性的构建需要深厚坚实的基础,但处理好两者关系需要漫长的实践过程。本文以伊朗历史上具有代表性的政治制度和宗教为例,说明伊朗政治合法性和宗教合法性构建的意义、基础、途径、两者间关系及其过程。面对全球范围内的物质和精神的冲击,伊朗面临的问题是在当今国内外新形势下,如何重新构建和巩固政权的政治合法性和宗教合法性。     

从“沉默权”看公权力在宪法上的“举证责任”

从＂沉默权＂的制度作用可以追踪到现代国家之中公权力所必须承担的宪法意义上的举证责任。以宪法内容的权力—权利两分法角度观察,该种举证责任在既定的宪法秩序之中产生,分为权力分配与设立中的＂肯定式举证＂和公民权利限制中的＂否定式举证＂。在当代国家,这两种举证责任的承担方式主要是通过立法（广义法律）进行,其结论的合法性主要来自于既定的立法程序。进而,公权力在宪法上的举证责任,于宪政秩序的建设中也就承担着合法性之证明的作用。     

The electronic face of government in the internet age: borrowing from Murray Edelman

The issue of legitimation by political elites has been a central concern of political scientists for many years. This article draws upon the work of Murray Edelman who was instrumental in analysing this relationship between rulers and ruled, the relatively powerful and relatively powerless, through an understanding of language, symbolism and the manipulation of information. It concludes with the contention that the Internet offers the prospect for governments to create new 'electronic faces', which act to support a symbolic architecture of power.     

高等学校学生管理合法性的基本原则

高等学校学生管理合法性的基本原则是指高等学校制定的规章制度和发生具体学生管理活动时所必须遵守的基本法则和行为标准。理解并遵守高等学校学生管理合法性的基本原则,是保证高校学生管理合法的重要前提。高等学校学生管理合法性的基本原则主要包括:主体合法、规章制度合法、程序合法、比例适度原则等。