Search

Copyright of Muzealnictwo is the property of Index Copernicus International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Acta Universitatis Lodziensis: Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais is the property of Associacao Nacional de Pos-Graduacao e Pesquisa em Planejamento Urbano e Regional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The main issue of the paper is the analysis of the key factors which affect the development of the Polish language in China. Each of these factors has been discussed in this article against the background of language policy and power of Polish language in mainland China. The author, starting with a review of important concepts on this subject, tries to indicate the factors determining the creation of new Polish studies faculties and Polish studies centres in mainland China. Political and economic factors, the task-oriented approach of Chinese institutions in combination with a far-reaching profit planning strategy, factors related to regional cooperation between Poland and China, as well as sentimental and historical ones are considered to be the most significant aspects. The author tries to find a common denominator for the actions of Polish public diplomacy and often arbitrary decisions of the Chinese authorities in promoting Polish language in China. He points out some challenges and threats related to the dynamic development of Polish in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości is the property of Stowarzyszenie Ksiegowych w Polsce Rada Naukowa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

General George Catlett Marshall, a soldier and diplomat, went down in history as the US secretary of state and the author of the famous Marshall Plan. In the years 1945-1947, he conducted a mediation mission in China which ended in a total fiasco. It is usually indicated that the reason for such a catastrophic conclusion was the inability to reach a compromise on the part of the Nationalist and Communist parties. The article points out that the actual goal of the Marshall Mission was to avoid America's political and military entanglement in China. The Truman administration's attention was focused on Europe. Real support for the KMT - which might have changed the outcome of the civil war - was not considered at all. The purpose of Marshall Mission was to provide an excuse to withdraw. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sino-American trade war has become a symbol of rivalry for leadership in the international system. It also attracts growing attention to the problem of possible change to the regional and global hegemony. The debate with its possible ramifications is clear to academics, the media and political elites. However, it has focused on a limited scope of factors and mostly at the leadership level of, most notably, the United States of America. Considering its complexity, the issue of US policy towards China should be analyzed at various levels. These include the presidents, their collaborators, domestic politics and US strategy, and, finally, the international system as it experiences the relative change of power distribution. The main goal of this article is to analyze the recent US administrations’ strategy towards the People’s Republic of China. This is in the context of changes to the international system, focusing on the relative change of power distribution. The hypothesis driving this article states that the US strategy towards China is a response to the changing relative distribution of power in the regional and global system. It follows that American administrations differ rather in methods than in goals of foreign policy. This text is prepared with reference to the Power Transition Theory of A. Organski and J. Kugler, and the research is based on the US strategic documents’ analysis and statistical analysis of the power distribution in the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of market mechanisms and state intervention in the field of regional development policy, in particular on the dominant process of development differentiation. The aim of the article is to verify to what extent market mechanisms are the driving force in China’s regional development policy, and to what extent state intervention is the driving force. It is also important because of the fact that regional policy is an amalgam of the public intervention and presence of market forces, regardless of the country’s political regime. The article identifies the elements that determine the differentiation of regional development due to the operation of market mechanisms and state intervention in China’s regional policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Safety & Fire Technology / Bezpieczeństwo i Technika Pożarnicza is the property of Centrum Naukowo-Badawcze Ochrony Przeciwpozarowej and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Russian‑Sino relationships are constantly improving which lead a significant amount of scholars to focus on their cultural similarities. This is true particularly to Russian academicians who try to point out civilizational and cultural closeness between Russia and China as a counterweight to the Western model. Indeed, there are some similarities, like predominance of collectivism over individualism and the need for a strong leadership. Nevertheless, if we take the risk of venturing into deeper space of cultural background and take into account not only political issues but also Russia’s and China’s identity and consciousness, then striking differences appear. On this level we can clearly see that similarities between Russia and China are superficial and they exist only on the surface. On the deeper, cultural level, however, those two “civilizations that became countries” have very little in common. They are – as we said – different civilizations incomparable to each other due to several historical, cultural and social reasons. This thesis leads to a conclusion that a successful cooperation and interaction between Russia and China is possible only on political, tactical issues, but there could be no real “melting pot” between them. This does not mean they are bound to conflict, but it clearly shows the artificiality of their “everlasting friendship”. Political conjunctures are bound to change whereas civilizational factors lasts longer and this explains why Russia and China will never become as close as the try to show. For similarities between them are of tactical, political importance, whereas differences are of strategic, ontological nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]