A rendszerparadigma. Fogalmi tisztázás = The system paradigm

Tanulmányomban, amint azt a cím is jelzi, használni szeretném a paradigma fogalmát. Ezt Kuhn vezette be a tudományelméletbe klasszikus művében (Kuhn [1962]). Kuhn nem adott egyértelmű definíciót, s maga a fogalom sok vitára adott okot. A konferenciára készülve, újraolvastam számos művet az általános tudományelmélet és speciálisan a közgazdaságtani metodológia köréből. Ha más nem, már ez a meghökkentő olvasmányélmény is óvatosságra int. Nyoma sincsen konszenzusnak, még az alapfogalmak értelmezésében sem. Ingerült konfrontatív vita zajlik. A szűkebben vett tudományelmélet és tudománytörténet alternatív iskolái közötti egyet nem értés mélyen gyökeredzik híveiknek egymástól eltérő filozófiai felfogásában. Szeretném elkerülni ezt az aknamezőt. Ez késztet arra, hogy fogalmi tisztázással kezdjem a fejtegetést, az esetleges félreértések elkerülésére. Nem kívánok hozzászólni ahhoz, hogy mennyiben volt Poppernek, Kuhnnak, Lakatosnak vagy másnak igaza a tudomány történetének elemzésében. A korrekt tárgyalásA szerző a cikk bevezetőjében ismerteti, milyen értelmezésben használja a társadalomtudományokra vonatkozóan a paradigma fogalmát, amelyet T. S. Kuhn eredetileg a természettudományok történetétől ihletve alkotott meg. Az új paradigma nem okvetlenül váltja fel a korábbit; több paradigma munkaképesen működhet egymás mellett. A rendszerparadigma kialakulásának mérföldkövei: Marx, Mises, Hayek, Polányi, Schumpeter és Eucken munkái. Noha filozófiájukat és politikai állásfoglalásukat tekintve igen heterogén a névsor, közös bennük a rendszerszemlélet\". Nemcsak a gazdaság egy-egy részletével foglalkoznak, hanem a rendszer egészével; nemcsak a gazdasággal, hanem a politikai, ideológiai és a társadalmi dimenziókkal is, s különös figyelmet fordítanak valamennyi szféra interakcióira. A rendszerparadigma nagy vizsgafeladata a posztszocialista átmenet kutatása. Ehhez nélkülözhetetlen; a magyarázó erőt tekintve semmilyen más paradigmával nem pótolható. Viszont a rendszerparadigma alkalmazói előrejelzéseikben (akárcsak más paradigmák művelői) sokszor súlyosan tévedtek. A rendszerparadigma prediktív ereje korlátozott, s ez szerénységre inti felhasználóit. / === / The notion of paradigm was originally created by T. S. Kuhn and inspired by the history of natural sciences. The introduction of the article explains the interpreation of the notion as used in social sciences. In this context a new paradigm does not necessarily replace the earlier one, several paradigms can operate beside each other. The milestones of the system paradigm are the works of Marx, Mises, Hayek, Polányi, Schumpeter and Eucken. Although the list is rather heterogeneous as regards the philosophies and political stand of the authors, common to them is the \"systemic approach\". They discuss not some detail of the economy, but the system as a whole; not only the economy, but the political, ideological and societal dimensions as well, and they pay particular attention to the interactions among all spheres. It is a great examination task of the system paradigm to research the post-socialist transition. It is indispensable for that; as regards explanatory power, it cannot be replaced by any other paradigm. On the other hand, the users of the system paradigm frequently made grave errors in their forecasts (similarly to those using other paradigms). The predictive power of the system paradigm is restricted and this warns its users to caution.

What is the Future of Strategic Management?

The history of planning and creating strategies has a past of over half a century. Throughout this lifetime period we have witnessed both the evolution of theory and practice. The MBA study books in the last-third of the 20th century have with predilection exhibited this very process as a complex of monetary centered budget planning, forecast-based planning, strategic planning and strategic management. There might be a controversy existing about the naming, characteristics and timing of these different sections but there is an accordance that the changes that we have taken place in the last decade as a whole without a doubt can be derived from these very changes in the business environment or in some outstanding cases (like 9/11) they can be acknowledged as the ability of corporate foreseeing and the ability to adapt to the vision of the future. The main purposes of the research is to provide a summarized picture about the changing process of this procedure during last decades as far as the planning and creating strategies are concerned and also their milestones and periods. Try to explore and systemize the very aspects of these changes. The happenings of the first decade of the new millennium are outstandingly interesting if we consider their real effect on the theory and practice of strategic management. Let us remember the euphoria around the year 2000, the predictions of „new technologies”, „new economy”, „new organization” and „new leadership”. We have implied before on the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center which meant a new era, a new quality of international terrorism and its consequences (Afghanistan, Iraq). But the „product” of this decade is the strategic aim that companies focus on, which is the social responsibility regarding the unavoidance of the effects of climate change on the long run. During the research the big question has risen concerning how did the science of strategic management do as far as the predictions of the global monetary and economic crisis are concerned? And also its solutions this very science has to offer in order to handle and get over the crisis. Does it conclude from the answers given to the questions that a change in paradigms are necessary, a new quality is needed or may be we have come to a new crossroad of the development process that will take over strategic management? (...)

Recent Developments in the Autonomy and Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Hungary: the Introduction of the Chancellor System

After the change of regime in 1989, Hungarian higher education started to return to its Humboldtian tradition. It was widely accepted that academic freedom could be guaranteed by high degree of institutional autonomy manifested especially in structures of self-governance and avoidance of direct state supervision/interventions. Attempts to introduce boards and other supervising bodies were successfully resisted until 2011. The new government coming into power in 2010, however, introduced new mechanisms of supervision and changed institutional governance and reduced institutional autonomy considerably. Changes in the selection of rectors, the appearance of state-appointed financial inspectors and the newly appointed Chancellors responsible for the finance, maintenance and administration of institutions are important milestones in this process. In the paper I review these developments focusing especially on the analysis of the Chancellor system.