This lecture explores the limits of politics in three senses: as a subject of study at Cambridge, as an academic discipline, and as a practical activity. Politics did not develop as an independent academic subject in Cambridge in the twentieth century, and only now is this situation being rectified with the creation of the new Department of Politics and International Studies. Politics as an academic discipline was once conceived as the master science. More recently it has become much more limited in its scope and its methods, but it still needs to preserve a tradition of political reasoning which focuses on problems rather than methodology, and is concerned with understanding the limits to politics. The limits of politics as a practical activity are explored through four modes of political reasoning: the sceptical, the idealist, the rationalist and the realist, as exemplified by the writings of Oakeshott, Keynes, Hayek, and Carr.

James V. Schall presents, in a convincing and articulate manner, the revelational contribution to political philosophy, particularly that which comes out of the Roman Catholic tradition.

As Ross Perot proved in 1992, even when funded by a bottomless bank account, American third parties have always struggled in their efforts to achieve recognition and political power. Yet even in defeat their contributions to national politics have been substantial. That, Peter Argersinger contends, was certainly true of the Populists a century earlier. Argersinger, one of our nation's foremost historians of the Populist era, brings together in this volume some of his best and most influential essays-ranging from a study of a single election campaign to complex analyses of political organizations, legislative behavior, and government institutions. Together they amply display his consistently sharp and wide-ranging insights on this important moment in American life. Argersinger examines, among other things, the Populists' evolution in electoral politics, from creating a party to running election campaigns; the enormous obstacles they overcame in the process of electing a U.S. Senator; specific laws and procedures that suppressed Populism's full political participation; hard-won successes in Western state legislatures in the face of powerful enemies and numerous internal disputes; and the Populists' long-standing struggles and frustrations with the U.S Congress. Throughout Argersinger illuminates the fundamental ways in which Populism challenged our political system and brings to life its volatile personalities, dramatic controversies, visionary programs, and enduring frustrations. (So frustrating that an Oklahoma Populist once pulled a gun on the Speaker of the House who kept refusing to recognize his request to speak to the assembly.) Of special interest to political, social, rural, Western, and Gilded Age historians, this book provides a timely reminder of the political constraints on third parties in America.

Numerous scholars have noticed that certain political institutions, including federalism, majoritarian electoral systems, and presidentialism, are linked to lower levels of income redistribution. This book offers a political geography explanation for those observed patterns. Each of these institutions is strongly shaped by geography and provides incentives for politicians to target their appeals and government resources to localities. Territorialized institutions also shape citizens’ preferences in ways that can undermine the national coalition in favor of redistribution. Moreover, territorial institutions increase the number of veto points in which anti-redistributive actors can constrain reform efforts. These theoretical connections between the politics of place and redistributive outcomes are explored in theory, empirical analysis, and case studies of the USA, Germany, and Argentina.

Institutions 'matter' to electoral reform advocates and political scientists - both argue that variation in electoral institutions affect how elected officials and citizens behave. Change the rules, and citizen engagement with politics can be renewed. Yet a look at the record of electoral reform reveals a string of disappointments. This book examines a variety of reforms, including campaign finance, direct democracy, legislative term limits, and changes to the electoral system itself. This study finds electoral reforms have limited, and in many cases, no effects. Despite reform advocates' claims, and contrary to the 'institutions matter' literature, findings here suggest there are hard limits to effects of electoral reform. The explanations for this are threefold. The first is political. Reformers exaggerate claims about transformative effects of new electoral rules, yet their goal may simply be to maximize their partisan advantage. The second is empirical. Cross-sectional comparative research demonstrates that variation in electoral institutions corresponds with different patterns of political attitudes and behaviour. But this method cannot assess what happens when rules are changed. Using examples from the US, UK, New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere this book examines attitudes and behaviour across time where rules were changed. Results do not match expectations from the institutional literature. Third is a point of logic. There is an inflated sense of the effects of institutions generally, and of electoral institutions in particular. Given the larger social and economic forces at play, it is unrealistic to expect that changes in electoral arrangements will have substantial effects on political engagement or on how people view politics and politicians. Institutional reform is an almost constant part of the political agenda in democratic societies. Someone, somewhere, always has a proposal not just to change the workings of the system but to reform it. The book is about how and why such reforms disappoint. Comparative Politics is a series for students, teachers, and researchers of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterised by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu. The Comparative Politics series is edited by Professor David M. Farrell, School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, and Kenneth Carty, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia.

Bonhoeffer thought and wrote a great deal about political life, but he did so neither as a political theorist nor a political activist but rather as a Christian pastor and theologian. Most of what he said about political resistance was said as a theologian, as one speaking on behalf of the church. For this reason, his thinking about political resistance can only be understood in the broader context of his theology. Bonhoeffer on Resistance provides an account of Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking as a whole. This involves placing his thinking about violent political resistance in the context of his thinking about resistance of all kinds; placing his thinking about political resistance of all kinds into the context of his thinking about political life in general; and, ultimately, placing his thinking about political life in the broader context of his theology, his thinking about the whole world and God's relationship to it. To establish the conceptual background necessary for understanding Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking, Michael P. DeJonge begins with a brief account of the theological story in which Bonhoeffer imbeds his account of political life: the story of God's creation of the world, the fall of that world into sin, and the redemption of that world in Christ. He introduces some specifically Lutheran accents to Bonhoeffer's theology that are essential for understanding his political vision, such as the doctrine of justification and the distinction between law and gospel. DeJonge then transitions from Bonhoeffer's theology into his political thinking by presenting the basic conceptual structures he employs when thinking through most political issues. Two important agents or institutions in political life are church and state, and DeJonge presents Bonhoeffer's account of these in light of the material presented in the previous chapters. The volume then presents Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking and activity, which can be considered from two overlapping perspectives, one chronological and the other systematic. This study shows that Bonhoeffer has a systematic, differentiated, and well-developed vision of political activity and resistance.

The continuous expansion of human rights can often appear to be positive, yet it provokes criticism. This volume argues against the internationalisation of human rights proving the world is moving from bilateralism to community interests, stating contentious supervision, evaluation, and substitution are far more common than genuine cooperation.

An analysis of Americanization in European and Japanese industry after World War II. The contributors analyze the creative role of local actors in selectively adapting US technology and management methods to suit local conditions, and in creating hybrid forms combining foreign and indigenous practices in unforeseen, yet remarkably competitive ways.

Public disenchantment with politics has become a key feature of the world in which we live. Politicians are increasingly viewed with suspicion and distrust, and electoral turnout in many modern democracies continues to fall. But are we right to display such contempt towards our elected representatives? Can politicians be morally good or is politics destined to involve dirty hands or the loss of integrity, as many modern philosophers claim? In this book, Susan Mendus seeks to address these important questions to assess whether this apparent tension between morality and politics is real and, if so, why. Beginning with an account of integrity as involving a willingness to stand by ones most fundamental moral commitments, the author discusses three reasons for thinking that politics undermines integrity and is incompatible with morality. These are: the relationship between politics and utilitarian calculation; the possibility that the realm of politics is a separate realm of value; and the difficulty of reconciling the demands of different social roles. She concludes that, in the modern world, we all risk losing our integrity. To that extent, we are all politicians. Moreover, we have reason to be glad that politicians are not always morally good. Written with verve and clarity, this book provides students and general readers an accessible guide to the philosophical debates about the complex relationship between politics and morality in the contemporary world.

"Canada's prime minister is a dictator." "The Sun King of Canadian government." "More powerful than any other chief executive of any other democratic country." These kinds of claims are frequently made about Canada's leader – especially when the prime minister's party holds a majority government in Parliament. But is there any truth to these arguments? At the Centre of Government not only presents a comprehensively researched work on the structure of political power in Canada but also offers a first-hand view of the inner workings of the Canadian federal government. Ian Brodie – former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada – argues that the various workings of the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, the cabinet, parliamentary committees, and the role of backbench members of Parliament undermine propositions that the prime minister has evolved into the role of an autocrat, with unchecked control over the levers of political power. He corrects the dominant thinking that Canadian prime ministers hold power without limits over their party, caucus, cabinet, Parliament, the public service, and the policy agenda. Citing examples from his time in government and from Canadian political history he argues that in Canada's evolving political system, with its roots in the pre-Confederation era, there are effective checks on executive power, and that the golden age of Parliament and the backbencher is likely now. Drawing on a vast body of work on governance and the role of the executive branch of government, At the Centre of Government is a fact-based primer on the workings of Canadian government and sobering second thoughts about many proposals for reform.