Search results

The family is one of the foundations of society; its significance for societal redistribution in modern societies, though, remains particularly unclear. A major reason for this is that theoretical approaches to societal redistribution have not adequately included family either in social philosophy or in welfare state theory. As a consequence, also empirical analyses of differences and developments in societal redistribution have not included family or only in as far as family is affected by other redistributive principles. This paper contributes to filling this theoretical gap.

This paper theorises family as a redistributive principle. With reference to the major theoretical concepts of redistribution, it identifies the relevant dimensions of family in societal redistribution and develops a typology of its inclusion in societal redistribution.

Approaches to redistribution are shaped by distinct concepts of equal or unequal exchange, the relevant actors they identify and by different understandings of the economy. These distinctions are central to understanding the position of family in societal redistribution. With reference to the major theoretical concepts of redistribution, this paper identifies the relevant dimensions of family in societal redistribution and develops a typology of its inclusion in societal redistribution. Further investigations might draw on this typology and detect the theoretical foundations of its conceptualisations and its similarities to and deviations from the developed types.

This paper provides a theoretical groundwork for theoretical and empirical investigations of societal redistribution and for better comprehending its international variation. It aims to initiate a fundamental rethinking of the usual understanding of societal redistribution that widely ignores family as a redistributive principle of its own.

Three important lessons can be drawn from the health situation in developing and democratizing world. First lesson is that the societal health does not occur in the vacuum of societal life or social structures, but it simultaneously inspires development of all major spheres of political, economic, and cultural life of society. Second, health policy transpires simultaneously in all major social institutions, including economy, political institutions, and culture. Furthermore, because all social institutions are interconnected, the initiation of health reforms causes enormous, multilevel changes in all social strata and affects the performance of all essential institutions. Third, according to the World Health Organization, health is considered an integral part of human security, human rights, and peace. Consequently, societal health is determined and depends on the fullest cooperation of governments, world-scale communities, and local health care providers.

When considering an agreeable development a realistic attitude towards presumed options is to be taken. Two prerequisites in particular prove necessary: first, a realistic model of man in his world, and second, a pragmatic philosophy to evaluate the given facts towards an appropriate, sustainable strategy of action. Mere tradition, wishful thinking, emotion, just hopeful illusions or escapism will not help. A responsible, guided attempt to control change is needed. Man, the dominant factor for the evolution of the life sphere has no other choice than consciously using his capacity to understand and to decide responsibly on his future.

My introduction to political sociology and particularly to the concept of democracy and its practical implication for societies started during my student years when I was a member of student chapter of the pro-democracy Solidarity Movement in Poland in 1980–1981. Participation in the Solidarity Movement taught me the unforgettable lesson about the power of individuals united by a common goal of building democratic society. I was able to witness how united citizens' concern about the future of their country could overpower totalitarian regimes (i.e., communist regimes), initiate their breakdown and, by voting and political participation, encourage policy makers and political figures to focus on betterment of societal living conditions. I also realize that democratization is a long process that starts with democratic political changes and democratic elections but it takes decades for their institutionalization and development, and it takes even longer to improve quality of people's lives in democratizing countries. Development of democracy requires experience, knowledge, and skills of domestic politicians and the existence of certain economic, political, and cultural structures conducive to democratic growth.

Considering the recent trends of the increasing globalization of the market economy and the diffusion of democracy, the modern world needs to pay closer attention to pro-women and pro-girls policies if gender discrimination is to be challenged. Such policies could mark an era of building greater gender equality across the world by strengthening domains of women’s well-being that have been shown to decline in the initial years of the democratization and globalization of countries.

Women, who have more complex societal roles than men and whose employment is more tenuous, are more vulnerable to the rapid restructuring in macro-political and economic systems and bear more of the costs of systemic changes. My world-scale analyses show that women and men benefit unequally from the growth of democracy and the global economy – men’s well-being improves with the growth of democracy and globalization but women’s well-being declines. According to my follow-up studies, the decline lasts for over a decade (2014). These findings suggest that prior results of research proposing that democracy and the global economy improve people’s well-being are most likely biased when gender and the level of development in countries are not accounted for. To protect women and girls and to avoid gender discrimination, globalizing and democratizing countries should prioritize gender mainstreaming in their policies.

For the 15 member states of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) to join and to introduce a measure of equity to the emergent global information society, they must be able to manage and exploit digital communication networks, technologies, products and services in ways that nurture and advance Caribbean knowledge, culture and development. This requires a type of digital access to the new telecommunication infrastructures these small developing countries as yet have been unable to attain. As a consequence, this paper develops a six‐layered model of societal access that includes physical, financial, cognitive, secure, administrative and operational components, and argues that in the absence of all of these layers functioning together, less advanced economies like those in the Caricom grouping cannot begin to build local innovation, foster knowledge creation and advocate increased equity in the evolving networked society.

Foresight J's journey started in 1999, and in 2022, it marked the conclusion of its 24 years of publication. This paper aims to provide an overall overview of important research trends published in Foresight J between 1999 and 2022 by conducting a quantitative analysis of the journal’s literature. The overarching goal is to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication, aiding researchers, institutions and policymakers in assessing the significance and influence of academic work, guiding future research directions and academic evaluation.

The two bibliometrics methodologies that make up the methodology of this article are scientific mapping and performance analysis. Authors have explained the development and composition of the Foresight J using these methods. The SCOPUS database is being used in current research to analyse several dimensions, such as the evolution of publications by year, the most cited papers, core authors and researchers, leading countries and prolific institutions. Moreover, the conceptual structure, scope, burst detection and co-occurrence analysis of the journal are mapped using network visualization software such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace and RStudio.

With a strong track record of output over the years, Foresight J has continued to develop in terms of publications. It is determined that “Saritas” is the author with the greatest overall impact. However, according to SCOPUS bibliometric data, “Blackman” and “Richardson” are the authors with the greatest relevance in terms of the quantity of articles. In addition, it becomes apparent that the USA, Australia and the UK are very productive nations in terms of publications. The most popular fields of the journal have always been forecasting, foresight, scenario planning, strategic planning, decision-making, technology and sustainable development. These are also the author keywords that appear the most frequently. In contrast, new study themes in the Foresight J include digital technologies, innovation, sustainability, blockchain, artificial intelligence and sustainability.

Several noteworthy research implications are provided by the bibliometric study of Foresight J. “Saritas” is the author with the most overall impact, indicating that the precise contributions and influence of this researcher in the fields of forecasting, foresight and related fields. Given that “Blackman” and “Richardson” are well-known writers, it is also critical to examine the scope and complexity of their contributions to potentially identify recurring themes or patterns in their writing. The geographic productivity results, which show that the USA, Australia and the UK are the top three countries for Foresight J publications, may encourage more research into regional differences, patterns of collaboration and the worldwide distribution of research endeavours in the context of forecasting and foresight. Popular fields including scenario planning, forecasting, foresight and sustainable development are consistent, indicating persistent research interests. Examining the causes of these subjects’ ongoing relevance can reveal information about the consistency and development of scholarly interests over time.

Foresight J’s bibliometric analysis has real-world applications for many stakeholders. It helps editors and publishers make strategic decisions about outreach and content by providing insights regarding the journal’s influence. Assessing organizational and author productivity helps institutions allocate resources more effectively. Policymakers acquire an instrument to evaluate research patterns and distribute funds efficiently. In general, bibliometric study of a journal helps decisionmakers in academic publishing make well-informed choices that maximize the potential of options for authors, editors, institutions and policymakers.

The societal ramifications of bibliometrically analysing Foresight J from 1999 and 2022 are substantial. This analysis highlights, over the past 24 years, research trends, technological developments and societal priorities have changed by methodically looking through the journal’s articles. Gaining knowledge about the academic environment covered by the journal can help raise public awareness of important topics and promote critical thinking. In addition, the analysis can support evidence-based decision-making by alerting decision makers to the influential research that was published in Foresight J. This could have an impact on the course of policies pertaining to innovation, technology and societal development.

This study presents a first comprehensive article that provides a general overview of the main trends and patterns of the research over the Foresight J’s history since its inception. Also, the paper will help the scientific community to know the value and impact of Foresight J.