Executive and Legislative System:
It is in this sense that I understand that in the course of the discussion and readings there was a comparison of the presidential or parliamentary form of government and that the result of this comparison leans more towards the latter although there is also some setbacks in this form it is minor compared to the former form of government.
But first, there are many dimensions that was tackled and that these dimensions are crucial – although not necessarily exclusive to any of the form of the governments – to the comparisons of the two forms of government:
1. Party Organization:
a. Party organization concerns the two forms of the government and their make up; the presidential form of government that owes its party to personalities as a vehicle for election, their party, especially in a multi-party system, is used as merely as a vehicle and to support this claim, some political actors, to be able to run for election or re-election, would shift to another party thus the term “Political Butterfly”. Then the parliamentary form of government which brings about greater party cohesion, maybe through their two party system, and that this party, once elected and gaining majority of the seats would equate to the government thus making an easier way of policy making for legislators.
2. Interest Organization:
a. Interest organization in both forms of government would translate to the different actors as veto players – there are no limits or classification of a veto player – there could be the political actors, the elites, the institutions and others. However, these veto players, in exercising their power and whoever is dominant would then affect policy making of the legislators or the state itself.
3. Bureaucratic Organization:
a. In the parliamentary system, this pertains to the election by the congress or what is called a political appointee – this form ensures stability, in that it gives accountability to the congress and policy continuity, that of which the elected leader would tackle on the same issues because of its responsibility towards the congress. Moreover, it is more accountable due to vertical accountability (the congress) and with better checks and balances.
b. It is different in the presidential form of government in that election is made by the people, making accountability diverse because it leads to the people – making it prone to destabilization – and that it does not ensure continuity of policies because of different administrations advocating independently their own agenda or interests.
4. Transparency:
a. There is no advantage in the two forms of government with regards to transparency; in both fields there is the importance of information dissemination as with regards to the media, moreover, in the parliamentary form of government there is a concept of “question hour” where the prime minister is questioned with what his agenda or policy is all about.
b. The idea of transparency is affected by other institutions such as media and other publications from the government.
5. Information:
a. It is in the sense of the quality and utility of the information regardless of the form of government; it is natural in both forms to take actions with regards to the information being given – this however, may mean that the government is capable of manipulating information for the sake of the policy they pursue or for other interest.
6. Electoral Accountability:
a. The form of the government affects electoral accountability, in the presidential form of government, electoral accountability is secured – that accountability is maintained – by means of elections while that of the parliamentary, being voted by the congress, has a concept of “vote of no confidence” making it internal to them.
7. Political Change:
a. Political change is generally a principle of the change of the government, in the parliamentary form of government, there could be a call for a dissolution of the government though it is not necessarily the power of the prime minister while that of the presidential is through impeachment where there is, in principle, a due process by adhering to the rule of law. Both however may be susceptible to outside forces or unforeseen events like military take over, invasion or people power in the local setting.
8. Institutionalization:
a. Institutionalization affects policy and political institutions – this concept is then directed towards the veto players again because many veto players affect policy formulation.
9. Contestation and Consensus:
a. The parliamentary form of government has a contestation or competition tempered and that the latter appears only upon election period. This type is more into reaching a consensus.
b. The presidential form of government however always has contestations and competitions because of the different powers and roles that might have overlapped making it difficult to create a consensus; moreover, there is a concept of different departments exercising different types of interest and power.
10. Decisiveness:
a. The parliamentary, bearing that power is centered in the congress and not on different people or the prime minister alone, their policy implementation is much more decisive while that of their counterpart is resolute in that it is giving and dividing due to its diverse location of power and different veto players promoting different interests
The first comparison:
Consensus versus Majoritarian – the former is a characterization of the parliamentary form of government in that the veto players or legislative body is more able to reach a consensus in that the power is equally distributed among the members and that this members of the parliament is somehow governed by the majority of the legislators which is in alliance with the leader or their prime minister, it is in this party organization that they own the number of seats and therefore is easily making into effect the policy they want to implement while that of the presidential form of government is majoritarian which means that power is distributed to different departments and that the role of this department is vague and there are much more veto players that could affect the outcome of the policy.
The second comparison:
Concentrated versus dispersed – in my understanding, this talks about the power that is distributed; in the case oft eh parliamentary, power is distributed within them so there is a more effective way of developing a policy and a more decisive manner of implementing it. While that of the presidential, power is distributed among legislators and departments creating a problem of identifying or making a definite power and role for this form of government thus the overlapping of power and role would then translate to a harder way of making policy and that it would result more into a giving and dividing form.
The third comparison:
Decisive versus resolute: As to the dimension, the parliamentary is more decisive and the presidential is more resolute.
With regards to the legislature, they have performed an important role in the transition phase of government – in the sense that it is a decision of a bridge or break form of transition. A bridge form is that from the former regime, that of which was toppled over or removed or whose term has expired, everything is retained and only the political actors are changed while that of the break form is a radical break from the former regime and that there is a new form that is sought after.
Presidents Parliaments and Policy.pdf
Measuring Presidential Power.pdf
Comparative Parliamentary Democracy.pdf
Are Parliamentary Systems Better.pdf
Democratization and Constitutional Crises in Presidential Regimes.pdf
The Crisis of Presidentialism in Latin America.pdf
Comparative Study of Second Chambers.pdf
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Challenges to Democratization and Constitutional Institutions
In our second reading, Challenges to Democratization and Constitutional Institutions, it tackled about what are democracy and the relationships of democracy, the civil society and the government in the realm of politics and some issues and functions.
But first what is democracy?
There is a conceptual democratic definition as to what I have understood in the readings. The readings stated that democracy is defined by the government in the sense that the government is made by the people, in this sense, I take it that the people is the one that holds the government and that is through their right to vote; in that it would mean representation and the people would vote for the persons they want to represent them. The process of Competition and Representation should be considered also in breaking down democracy to better understand its definition, the former ensures that there is democracy through the electorates which I think, in Philippines, is defined by the ethno linguistic lines – race and lineage - at least at the national level and only evident in elections, the latter, in principle, the electorate should concern themselves in securing the representation by them for the people – an idea that of which is to some extent questionable for some politicians might renege from their promise thus not representing the people and fulfilling only their own interests. Inclusion and Responsive, democracy being inclusive would promote equality and this would go to the extent that even if the voter is illiterate, he/she could still vote because this concept guarantees that there is no one that is discriminated and excluded. Responsive would mean that there is a good government and a representation through the “political party” this term promotes good governance because it promotes formal role of representation for other aggregate interests because it tends to filter all demands or interests and articulates the demand that is much needed. It also helps in recruitment and leadership in elections; this is important for one could imagine when there is no body that filters different demands and interests, it would mean trouble for the government and democracy if it should be required to respond to virtually every demand that is presented, especially when the greater concern of the government is economic reforms where in the developed countries they aspire for greater competitiveness and the newly developed countries in redistributive efforts for a greater efficiency.
There is also a need to have participation, rule of law, civilian authority, accountability, transparency and fundamental rights. The first one, participation, the government to be able to be democratic should let the people participate in all of the political processes, not just in representation but also through the use of information. The government should also concern itself towards how and when the information should be distributed. Like in other places and forms of government, there should be a concept of the rule of law, which is a very problematic area because it is where people are exercising their rights in any way possible, in any interest there is, whether it is bad or good because it is the ascendancy of all legal forms and that even if it is attributed to authoritarianism, it is essential because without it, the government is unpredictable and it could be a basis for checks and balances. Civilian authority is fundamental in that it ensures that the civilians are properly accounted for because the government realizes them as an integral part or the core of democracy, accountability and transparency are almost the same in that, for me, being accountable is not just secured by means of being elected by the people, it should be reinforced by a set of information shown to the public and that the latter is integral in that it is the means that the public would know what is happening to the government and the essence of information is shown here. Fundamental rights simply means that the laws established should be able to protect everyone and there should be no one that is above the law, it should be projected, respected and fulfilled by all means.
There is always democratization and its processes; there could be transitions from other forms of governance towards democracy. First, there should be movements from non-democratic to democratic reform, second is that there should be instances of pacts, mass mobilization and or collapse of regimes after which there is replacement, transformation, transplacement and or a pacted transition; that of which the process of transition should include bridge or break in that the former, the leaders or essential principle of the former regime is taken again and the change is merely of actors or a break that of which would radically change everything in a constitution or make up of a government, as is the case in the Philippines of Marcos and Aquino presidency, it was merely a bridge of political regime that happened. It was discussed in class that replacement may also mean the change of leadership in favor of the opposition.
There are also other generalizations about democracy such as high levels of economic development guarantee democratic continuity. It is in the sense that such occurrence was seen to promote high levels of education, mobility and that of the standards of the middle class is favorable, this would ensure that there is democratic continuity. Moreover, since it is economic in perspective, the role of the elites or upperclass would determine the sustenance or collapse of democracy.
There is also a type of linkage and that it is the citizen – leader linkage:
There is charismatic that of which the popularity of the person is vital (take for example the ascendancy of the deposed President Estrada of the Philippines), clientelistic, in that the there are some forces that would provide resources for political actors that when these actors are in power, they would favor these forces more; it is good in a rich resource but low voting population and vice versa. While the ideal type of linkage is the programmatic, this type would not prevail if there is no presence of programmatic political parties.
The papers as to what I have read are in favor of a parliamentary form of democracy in that it is far better to provide the concept that the presidential form of government. In that the former tries to reach for a consensus, that of which there is the same goal and the interests are varied but then they would still meet at what interest should be agreed to effectively attain a common goal; in the latter, it is more of a majoritarian form where everybody could take part in a discourse of actually implementing a major reform or not and then they have the power to veto it differently according to their own interests. Moreover, in the parliamentary form, power and actor is concentrated unlike that of the presidential that is dispersed. The former also seeks out policy formulation decisively unlike that of the latter that tends to be resolute because of the other factors and that these actions have an impact in governance and democratization. Political power is not defined with political role and that in the parliamentary system it is fused making the distribution of power and the actual role of those in power are defined unlike that of the presidential which has different departments and power making their role and power indistinguishable.
There is also an impact of the civil society, that of which in some instances are laudable and in other ambiguous in a process of transition to democracy. Civil societies, in essence are the people and their interest groups. Its impact in democratization is great in the sense that they are the ones that would react and serve as democracy’s inner strength when undetermined factors occur, take for instance the occurrence of EDSA revolts, in some other times however, these very organizations are the ones that are detrimental to democratic continuity, for example, the election of leaders that are incapable of leading the country, I would not name anybody but this could be an instance of political ignorance if there is such a term in exercising their rights to suffrage. These very civil society are too central that their roles are uncertain in that their actions could sometimes determine the very foundation of democratic continuity.
Comparative Democratization - Big and Bounded Generalizations.pdf
Heroes or Villians - Images of Citizens and Civil Society in the Literature of Democracy.pdf
Linkages Between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.pdf
Direct Democracy and Institutional Change.pdf
The Size of Government in Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies.pdf
Civil Society cannot replace Parties.pdf
Value Change and Democratic Reform in Japan and Korea.pdf
But first what is democracy?
There is a conceptual democratic definition as to what I have understood in the readings. The readings stated that democracy is defined by the government in the sense that the government is made by the people, in this sense, I take it that the people is the one that holds the government and that is through their right to vote; in that it would mean representation and the people would vote for the persons they want to represent them. The process of Competition and Representation should be considered also in breaking down democracy to better understand its definition, the former ensures that there is democracy through the electorates which I think, in Philippines, is defined by the ethno linguistic lines – race and lineage - at least at the national level and only evident in elections, the latter, in principle, the electorate should concern themselves in securing the representation by them for the people – an idea that of which is to some extent questionable for some politicians might renege from their promise thus not representing the people and fulfilling only their own interests. Inclusion and Responsive, democracy being inclusive would promote equality and this would go to the extent that even if the voter is illiterate, he/she could still vote because this concept guarantees that there is no one that is discriminated and excluded. Responsive would mean that there is a good government and a representation through the “political party” this term promotes good governance because it promotes formal role of representation for other aggregate interests because it tends to filter all demands or interests and articulates the demand that is much needed. It also helps in recruitment and leadership in elections; this is important for one could imagine when there is no body that filters different demands and interests, it would mean trouble for the government and democracy if it should be required to respond to virtually every demand that is presented, especially when the greater concern of the government is economic reforms where in the developed countries they aspire for greater competitiveness and the newly developed countries in redistributive efforts for a greater efficiency.
There is also a need to have participation, rule of law, civilian authority, accountability, transparency and fundamental rights. The first one, participation, the government to be able to be democratic should let the people participate in all of the political processes, not just in representation but also through the use of information. The government should also concern itself towards how and when the information should be distributed. Like in other places and forms of government, there should be a concept of the rule of law, which is a very problematic area because it is where people are exercising their rights in any way possible, in any interest there is, whether it is bad or good because it is the ascendancy of all legal forms and that even if it is attributed to authoritarianism, it is essential because without it, the government is unpredictable and it could be a basis for checks and balances. Civilian authority is fundamental in that it ensures that the civilians are properly accounted for because the government realizes them as an integral part or the core of democracy, accountability and transparency are almost the same in that, for me, being accountable is not just secured by means of being elected by the people, it should be reinforced by a set of information shown to the public and that the latter is integral in that it is the means that the public would know what is happening to the government and the essence of information is shown here. Fundamental rights simply means that the laws established should be able to protect everyone and there should be no one that is above the law, it should be projected, respected and fulfilled by all means.
There is always democratization and its processes; there could be transitions from other forms of governance towards democracy. First, there should be movements from non-democratic to democratic reform, second is that there should be instances of pacts, mass mobilization and or collapse of regimes after which there is replacement, transformation, transplacement and or a pacted transition; that of which the process of transition should include bridge or break in that the former, the leaders or essential principle of the former regime is taken again and the change is merely of actors or a break that of which would radically change everything in a constitution or make up of a government, as is the case in the Philippines of Marcos and Aquino presidency, it was merely a bridge of political regime that happened. It was discussed in class that replacement may also mean the change of leadership in favor of the opposition.
There are also other generalizations about democracy such as high levels of economic development guarantee democratic continuity. It is in the sense that such occurrence was seen to promote high levels of education, mobility and that of the standards of the middle class is favorable, this would ensure that there is democratic continuity. Moreover, since it is economic in perspective, the role of the elites or upperclass would determine the sustenance or collapse of democracy.
There is also a type of linkage and that it is the citizen – leader linkage:
There is charismatic that of which the popularity of the person is vital (take for example the ascendancy of the deposed President Estrada of the Philippines), clientelistic, in that the there are some forces that would provide resources for political actors that when these actors are in power, they would favor these forces more; it is good in a rich resource but low voting population and vice versa. While the ideal type of linkage is the programmatic, this type would not prevail if there is no presence of programmatic political parties.
The papers as to what I have read are in favor of a parliamentary form of democracy in that it is far better to provide the concept that the presidential form of government. In that the former tries to reach for a consensus, that of which there is the same goal and the interests are varied but then they would still meet at what interest should be agreed to effectively attain a common goal; in the latter, it is more of a majoritarian form where everybody could take part in a discourse of actually implementing a major reform or not and then they have the power to veto it differently according to their own interests. Moreover, in the parliamentary form, power and actor is concentrated unlike that of the presidential that is dispersed. The former also seeks out policy formulation decisively unlike that of the latter that tends to be resolute because of the other factors and that these actions have an impact in governance and democratization. Political power is not defined with political role and that in the parliamentary system it is fused making the distribution of power and the actual role of those in power are defined unlike that of the presidential which has different departments and power making their role and power indistinguishable.
There is also an impact of the civil society, that of which in some instances are laudable and in other ambiguous in a process of transition to democracy. Civil societies, in essence are the people and their interest groups. Its impact in democratization is great in the sense that they are the ones that would react and serve as democracy’s inner strength when undetermined factors occur, take for instance the occurrence of EDSA revolts, in some other times however, these very organizations are the ones that are detrimental to democratic continuity, for example, the election of leaders that are incapable of leading the country, I would not name anybody but this could be an instance of political ignorance if there is such a term in exercising their rights to suffrage. These very civil society are too central that their roles are uncertain in that their actions could sometimes determine the very foundation of democratic continuity.
Comparative Democratization - Big and Bounded Generalizations.pdf
Heroes or Villians - Images of Citizens and Civil Society in the Literature of Democracy.pdf
Linkages Between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.pdf
Direct Democracy and Institutional Change.pdf
The Size of Government in Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies.pdf
Civil Society cannot replace Parties.pdf
Value Change and Democratic Reform in Japan and Korea.pdf
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Institutional Analysis
Institutional Analysis:
Going on with the readings and discussions, I realized that there were two kinds of institutionalism; old institutionalism and new institutionalism. These two were affected by significant changes that were presented during their time; most especially the behavioral revolution of the 1960’s where it criticized the game theory or the rational theory.
First of all, what is the old institutionalism? It, most importantly, focuses on the institution; the politics and power which had the arena in the government and the state. It is following a formal legal basis and structure of the state. That of which their philosophy somehow involves political science through common sense as the science of the law of state is in a way integral to the institutionalism’s belief. Its subject matter was in rules, procedures and formal obligations of the government; the government was seen as a structure instead of governance as a process. I take it that some of the subfields of political science are comparative politics, constitutional studies and the like.
It has five assumptions, the first being normative, that is, they concern themselves with “what ought to be” and that this one way or another is concerned with “good governance”. Second, is being structuralism saying that structures determine political behavior; the third is its nature of being historicist in the sense that history has a central role in influencing what would happen. Fourth is its being legalist by following the rule of law and fifth is its being holistic in that it is considered as a whole system.
The state was seen in its structure, the people then the territory, its sovereignty and the government that of which has two forms – presidential and parliament- the concept of power where it was three; unitary, federal and confederationalism, and then finally the branches where there were executive, legislative and judiciary.
Its critic was that of its being formal (Formalism), that it focuses on rules and procedures to the extent that it neglected behavior; it focuses too much on the state rather than the society. This was the time that Behavioralism attacked it with the coming of the “behavioral revolution” resulting to the concept of the state that it is value-free, empirical explanatory and predictive; the state is to be called a “Political System”.
This critic gave rise to a new concept of institutionalism (New Institutionalism) in the early 80’s as a conscious response to rational choice theory and behaviouralism. The former deals with rational choice; about choosing the best option that will maximize utility. It was rejected because political actions do not always behave in pursuit of material interest, it was because of the assumed regularity of human behavior. New institutionalism wants the discourse to return to institutional cycle and bring the state back in the center.
Thus, new institutionalism is then defined as an organized framework of rules that regulates individual and group behavior on the basis of the established rules and procedures. In this sense, it encompasses the old institutionalism while at the same time responding to the attack of the concept of behavioralism. There was an understanding of a recurrent pattern of behavior and that there are interactions governed upon by law. This thing gives emphasis that “institution matters” saying that political conduct is shaped profoundly by the institutional context in which it occurs and acquires significance; history also matters, in the sense that the legacy of the past bequeaths to the present is considerable.
The assumptions of new institutionalism are that being in organization to rules in that things are structured to how things are done, there are also formal to informal concepts of structures where there are unacknowledged conditions or unwritten conventions, to me, the best analogy is the Philippine’s concept of “tuli” it is not written in rules but then it is a behavior or condition that every Filipino adolescent should go. J
Prior to these, there are three kinds of institutionalism, the first one is the historical approach where the concept of power is found together with the realization of path dependency theory, the second is the rational choice approach where there are fixed sets of preferences that affects the utility maximization of the individual and the last is the sociological where how informal rules or symbols and behavior affects the outcome of decisions or the behavior itself of the individual.
There is also a static to dynamic conditions or concept in that there is a concept of institutional stability and change, there is also a submerged value to a value-critical stance, second to the last assumption is being holistic to a disaggregated conceptions of institutions like its components. And the last of the assumptions is independence to embeddedness; saying that there are political institutions embedded in a particular context.
There are also seven strains of new institutionalism, as what I could remember, the first one is being normative; how norms and values or culture shape an individual’s behavior, second is its being rational choice, where systems of rules and an individual’s effort to maximize his or her utilities. Third is a historic concept where decisions made are affecting the future decisions; this for me follows a theory of Path Dependency where the path that was first taken cannot be changed and that that path will lead to a path that is only affected or is a result of the path previously taken where reverting or changing the previous path would be impossible if not costly. As for example, a driver in his car going on a one way street in the opposite direction, he could not go back yet he risk being caught and he should not go because it is against the rule, however, the best thing to do is go further for the driver has already entered the situation; another one is if the couple (not yet married) after having some good time had unwanted pregnancy, they should not commit abortion for it is wrong in many ways and that they should go forth with what would happen, getting married unless, as is in the path dependency, external force affects it like miscarriage or the guy left the girl; nevertheless the path they took would lead them to another path that was a result of the previous path. The fourth of the seven strain is its being empirical where practitioners could classify institutional types and analyze practical impact on government performance, fifth is international where behavior of states is geared by structural constraints and the sixth is sociological where there are studies in ways which institutions creates meaning for individuals and the last is network where it shows how regularized but informal, patterns of interaction between individuals and groups shape political behavior.
Although institutionalism might act as insulators to politics and the economy, there are some setbacks like its inclusion of everything or conceptual stretching and the problem of defining and measuring where there are no recognized measures, like for instance the measurement of behavior of the person and lastly, institutionalism as being reductionist saying that concepts are reduced to institutional and structural logic.
References:
Campbell, J. L. and Pedersen O. K., eds. (2001) The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis. pp. 1-23
Carey, J. M. (2000) “Parchment Equilibria and Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 33 No. 6/7, pp. 735-761.
Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” pp. 1-32
Lieberman, E. S. (2001) “Causal Inference in Historical Institutional Analysis: A specification of periodization strategies.” Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1011-1035.
McAnulla, Stuart. (2002) “Structure and Agency”. Theory and methods in Political Science. (2nd ed.) Ch.13. pp. 271-291
Scharpf, Fritz W. (2000) “Institutions in Comparative Political Research.” Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 33 No. 6/7, pp. 762-790.
Going on with the readings and discussions, I realized that there were two kinds of institutionalism; old institutionalism and new institutionalism. These two were affected by significant changes that were presented during their time; most especially the behavioral revolution of the 1960’s where it criticized the game theory or the rational theory.
First of all, what is the old institutionalism? It, most importantly, focuses on the institution; the politics and power which had the arena in the government and the state. It is following a formal legal basis and structure of the state. That of which their philosophy somehow involves political science through common sense as the science of the law of state is in a way integral to the institutionalism’s belief. Its subject matter was in rules, procedures and formal obligations of the government; the government was seen as a structure instead of governance as a process. I take it that some of the subfields of political science are comparative politics, constitutional studies and the like.
It has five assumptions, the first being normative, that is, they concern themselves with “what ought to be” and that this one way or another is concerned with “good governance”. Second, is being structuralism saying that structures determine political behavior; the third is its nature of being historicist in the sense that history has a central role in influencing what would happen. Fourth is its being legalist by following the rule of law and fifth is its being holistic in that it is considered as a whole system.
The state was seen in its structure, the people then the territory, its sovereignty and the government that of which has two forms – presidential and parliament- the concept of power where it was three; unitary, federal and confederationalism, and then finally the branches where there were executive, legislative and judiciary.
Its critic was that of its being formal (Formalism), that it focuses on rules and procedures to the extent that it neglected behavior; it focuses too much on the state rather than the society. This was the time that Behavioralism attacked it with the coming of the “behavioral revolution” resulting to the concept of the state that it is value-free, empirical explanatory and predictive; the state is to be called a “Political System”.
This critic gave rise to a new concept of institutionalism (New Institutionalism) in the early 80’s as a conscious response to rational choice theory and behaviouralism. The former deals with rational choice; about choosing the best option that will maximize utility. It was rejected because political actions do not always behave in pursuit of material interest, it was because of the assumed regularity of human behavior. New institutionalism wants the discourse to return to institutional cycle and bring the state back in the center.
Thus, new institutionalism is then defined as an organized framework of rules that regulates individual and group behavior on the basis of the established rules and procedures. In this sense, it encompasses the old institutionalism while at the same time responding to the attack of the concept of behavioralism. There was an understanding of a recurrent pattern of behavior and that there are interactions governed upon by law. This thing gives emphasis that “institution matters” saying that political conduct is shaped profoundly by the institutional context in which it occurs and acquires significance; history also matters, in the sense that the legacy of the past bequeaths to the present is considerable.
The assumptions of new institutionalism are that being in organization to rules in that things are structured to how things are done, there are also formal to informal concepts of structures where there are unacknowledged conditions or unwritten conventions, to me, the best analogy is the Philippine’s concept of “tuli” it is not written in rules but then it is a behavior or condition that every Filipino adolescent should go. J
Prior to these, there are three kinds of institutionalism, the first one is the historical approach where the concept of power is found together with the realization of path dependency theory, the second is the rational choice approach where there are fixed sets of preferences that affects the utility maximization of the individual and the last is the sociological where how informal rules or symbols and behavior affects the outcome of decisions or the behavior itself of the individual.
There is also a static to dynamic conditions or concept in that there is a concept of institutional stability and change, there is also a submerged value to a value-critical stance, second to the last assumption is being holistic to a disaggregated conceptions of institutions like its components. And the last of the assumptions is independence to embeddedness; saying that there are political institutions embedded in a particular context.
There are also seven strains of new institutionalism, as what I could remember, the first one is being normative; how norms and values or culture shape an individual’s behavior, second is its being rational choice, where systems of rules and an individual’s effort to maximize his or her utilities. Third is a historic concept where decisions made are affecting the future decisions; this for me follows a theory of Path Dependency where the path that was first taken cannot be changed and that that path will lead to a path that is only affected or is a result of the path previously taken where reverting or changing the previous path would be impossible if not costly. As for example, a driver in his car going on a one way street in the opposite direction, he could not go back yet he risk being caught and he should not go because it is against the rule, however, the best thing to do is go further for the driver has already entered the situation; another one is if the couple (not yet married) after having some good time had unwanted pregnancy, they should not commit abortion for it is wrong in many ways and that they should go forth with what would happen, getting married unless, as is in the path dependency, external force affects it like miscarriage or the guy left the girl; nevertheless the path they took would lead them to another path that was a result of the previous path. The fourth of the seven strain is its being empirical where practitioners could classify institutional types and analyze practical impact on government performance, fifth is international where behavior of states is geared by structural constraints and the sixth is sociological where there are studies in ways which institutions creates meaning for individuals and the last is network where it shows how regularized but informal, patterns of interaction between individuals and groups shape political behavior.
Although institutionalism might act as insulators to politics and the economy, there are some setbacks like its inclusion of everything or conceptual stretching and the problem of defining and measuring where there are no recognized measures, like for instance the measurement of behavior of the person and lastly, institutionalism as being reductionist saying that concepts are reduced to institutional and structural logic.
References:
Campbell, J. L. and Pedersen O. K., eds. (2001) The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis. pp. 1-23
Carey, J. M. (2000) “Parchment Equilibria and Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 33 No. 6/7, pp. 735-761.
Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” pp. 1-32
Lieberman, E. S. (2001) “Causal Inference in Historical Institutional Analysis: A specification of periodization strategies.” Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1011-1035.
McAnulla, Stuart. (2002) “Structure and Agency”. Theory and methods in Political Science. (2nd ed.) Ch.13. pp. 271-291
Scharpf, Fritz W. (2000) “Institutions in Comparative Political Research.” Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 33 No. 6/7, pp. 762-790.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)