首页> 外文OA文献 >Moving beyond ‘institutions matter’: some reflections on how the ‘rules of the game’ evolve and change
【2h】

Moving beyond ‘institutions matter’: some reflections on how the ‘rules of the game’ evolve and change

机译:超越“制度问题”:关于“游戏规则”如何演变和改变的一些思考

摘要

This paper is a modest attempt to engage with the theories and debates on institutions, (especially on institutional change) offered by the different traditions working within the institutionalist perspective, to assess how helpful they are in unravelling the complex set of issues and questions raised above. I discuss four particularly relevant dimensions of an institutionalist perspective, in order to unbundle the concept of institutions and institutional change, as expressed through the abstract ideas of the structure and the dynamics of 'rules of the game'. In the first section, I briefly discuss the first three issues, which are: (a) multiplicity and multi-layering of institutions; (b) institutional arrangement; and (c) institutional appropriateness. In the following section, the issue of institutional change is examined in some detail. Three broad traditions or strands of the institutionalist perspective, namely, (i) Rational Choice Institutionalism, (ii) Historical Institutionalism, and (c) Sociological Institutionalism, are explored here, to understand how strategic actions, conflicts around asymmetrical power structure in polity and society, and engagements with the cultural systems of meaning that pervade all aspects of life and society - respectively the key themes or the conceptual constructs of these traditions - help us to understand better why 'rules of the game' evolve and change. The reflections draw attention to the fact that, though offering a few useful ideas on institutional development in their own ways, none of them pays adequate attention to the role of ideas and agency, and the multi-directional causal relationships between them and institutions, which I argue are critical to enriching the explanatory scope and depth of an institutionalist mode of inquiry. In the concluding section, I offer brief comments to further highlight this problem and offer a few thoughts on some possible alternative conceptual constructs that may help to resolve the dilemmas in which these traditions are engulfed, and highlight the need of developing and testing them through empirical research into cases of institutional change.
机译:本文是一种适度的尝试,旨在研究制度主义观点下不同传统提供的制度(特别是制度变革)的理论和辩论,以评估它们在解决上述复杂问题方面的帮助。 。我讨论了制度主义观点的四个特别相关的方面,以便解散制度和制度变迁的概念,这是通过结构的抽象概念和“博弈规则”的动态表达出来的。在第一部分中,我简要讨论了前三个问题:(a)制度的多重性和多层性; (b)体制安排; (c)制度上的适当性。在下一节中,将详细研究制度变迁的问题。本文探讨了制度主义观点的三大传统或分支,即(i)理性选择制度主义,(ii)历史制度主义和(c)社会学制度主义,以了解战略行动,政体不对称权力结构周围的冲突以及社会以及遍及生活和社会各个方面的意义文化体系的介入-分别是这些传统的关键主题或概念构造-帮助我们更好地理解“游戏规则”为何会发展和改变。这些反思提请注意以下事实:尽管以自己的方式就制度发展提供了一些有用的思想,但没有一个人充分重视思想和代理的作用以及思想与代理之间的多向因果关系,从而我认为对于丰富制度主义探究模式的解释范围和深度至关重要。在总结部分中,我将提供简短的评论以进一步强调这个问题,并对一些可能的替代概念构造提供一些想法,这些构造可能有助于解决这些传统所陷入的困境,并强调需要通过实证研究和测试它们研究制度变迁的案例。

著录项

  • 作者

    Srivastava Manoj;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2004
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号