Devil Red

公民社會和第三部門研究導論
何增科
自本世紀80年代以來，公民社會（Civil Society）理論再度流行起來並成為當代西方學術研究的一個熱門話題，它在西方政治家和公眾中也產生了強烈的反響和共鳴。主張社會獨立於國家而存在的思想在西方有著悠久的歷史，其傳統甚至可以追溯到古希臘羅馬時期，但以國家和社會的分離為基礎的近代公民社會概念是在17—19世紀之間才出現的。近代公民社會理論是西歐和美國資產階級反對專制主義國家和重商主義國家捍衛個人自由和權利的重要武器。進入本世紀70年代以來，公民社會概念得到復活。起初它主要被西方少數左翼學者和東歐一些激進學者用來批判現實社會並闡明理想社會之輪廓。80年代後，公民社會概念逐漸融入西方主流派知識話語體系之中，關於公民社會的討論日益增多。1989年蘇東劇變後，對公民社會的研究在西方和蘇東學術界形成空前的熱潮，各個大學紛紛成立公民社會研究團體，公民社會概念也成為眾多學術論著和國際性學術會議頻頻討論的一個話題。90年代後，公民社會研究熱潮從西方和蘇東學術界擴展到世界其他地區，這些國家學者也紛紛用這一概念分析本國歷史和現實或探尋本國公民社會建構問題。公民社會理論遂成為當代世界一股重要的社會政治思潮。
以非政府組織（Non-Governmental Organizations， NGO）和或非營利組織（Non-Profit Organizations，NPO ）為物件的第三部門（Third Sector）研究興起於80年代，它起初和公民社會理論的關係並不密切。這是因為當時的公民社會理論家主要是在政治哲學的層面展開規範的研究，而第三部門研究則偏重於從組織理論和行政管理理論的角度開展自己的研究。進入90年代後，這種情況發生了很大的改觀。公民社會理論家開始轉向從政治社會學的角度對作為一個社會實體的公民社會進行實證的研究，而第三部門研究者也開始關注諸如非政府組織或非營利部門的作用及其與國家和市場的關係等更加一般的理論問題，雙方開始找到理論的契合點。公民社會理論和第三部門研究的關係也因此越來越密切，這兩種研究出現了合流的趨勢。 　
一

當代政治理論的主要流派
俞可平
http://www.cp.org.cn/pool%5Cdzzlldzylp.htm
政治學的歷史演革表明，政治學與現實政治的關係最為密切，它始終隨著現實的變化而變化，隨著現實的發展而發展。完全可以說，每一個時代都有每個時代自己的政治學理論，每一種政治理論也必然打上時代的烙印。政治學家由於所處的經濟和文化背景不同，政治立場和價值觀不同，分析和觀察問題的角度不同，對上面這些現實政治問題的認識也極不相同。現當代以來，各國政治學家提出的各種各樣觀點、學說和思想，大體上可歸入以下不同的政治理論或政治思想流派：新自由主義、新保守主義、新馬克思主義、精英主義、社群主義、民主社會主義等等。
新自由主義

New vision of a welfare state
by New vision of a welfare state
Dr. Anna Yeatman

The Universal Welfare State: Theory and the Case of Sweden
Andreas Bergh
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00506.x/full/

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/WKS.htm
Book Review of:
Alexander Kaufman: Welfare in the Kantian State. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. xii + 179 pages.
Welfare in the Kantian State begins with a bold claim: that the common appeal to Kant by libertarian political philosophers is a misappropriation, inasmuch as Kant’s own political philosophy leaves plenty of room for a welfare state. Throughout the remainder of the book, Kaufman presents the exact nature of this basic claim in a variety of apparently conflicting forms, ranging from an insistence that Kant’s philosophy “requires” the state to aid the disadvantaged (e.g., p.8), to milder statements such as that his fundamental principles allow that such aid “may” be given or that state legislation “could encompass” (p.25) laws oriented toward aiding the disadvantaged. In the course of engaging a good selection of Kant scholars and political philosophers on this issue, he never settles on a single, clear and unambiguous statement of how far he thinks Kant himself intended his philosophy to be taken in this direction.
Perhaps the primary reason for this lack of clarity and consistency in Kaufman’s exposition is that he fails to recognize what many contemporary Kant scholars now regard as the essential feature of Kant’s main philosophical writings: that they constitute first and foremost a system of interlocking perspectives. Interpreters who neglect this fact are bound to conflate perspectives Kant saw as distinct. Thus, for example, Kaufman assumes that the third Critique is a “revision” of Kant’s earlier stance on teleological judgment (p.63), when in fact it is merely an account of how judgment looks when viewed from a new standpoint (viz., the judicial, as opposed to the theoretical standpoint adopted in the first Critique).

Roberta Pergher
INTS 4763
Paper # 1
http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/spsba01_W98_1/denver3.htm
The Welfare State-A Commitment Against Violence

Books in Review
Behemoth: Main Currents in the History and Theory of Political Sociology
Copyright(c) 1999 First Things 97 (November 1999):60-64.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State vs. Society

Volume 9 Number 1 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Theory in the Welfare State, Niklas Luhmann, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1990, 239 pages, hardback, DM 78:00, US $44:95, ?3.10
This is an English translation of an earlier work (Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat), plus some later material, by the eminent German sociologist, Niklas Luhmann. The additional material, however fits neatly into the original text so that the book constitutes a coherent, if not very lucid, whole.
It is in many ways a puzzling book, the main message of which is not all that clear, partly because of a somewhat clumsy translation but mainly because of the excessively abstract style of the author. There is some pretty heady theorising here, and Luhmann has an annoying habit of dressing up some rather obvious points in such an arcane manner that their obviousness is likely to become lost on the unsuspecting reader. Also, some familiar issues, such as the 'crisis of legitimacy' in modern society, are handled in such a heavy-handed way that they quickly lose their familiarity.

Understanding Political Libertarianism

By Will Wilkinson

In his meandering July 20th essay, Edward Feser failed totally to demonstrate the "The Trouble with Libertarianism." It's hard to pin down the argument in Feser's convoluted dissertation. I count at least four loosely confederated claims:

http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/200503/27/t20050327_3435385.shtml
構建和諧社會的經濟學解讀 區別西方福利國家
2005年03月27日 15:35
姚 洋