Political institutions experienced, not only in the political science, a strong meaning increase. This applies also and in particular to the field of activity of the comparative political science, institution economics and organization sociology.
The view of political institutions decreases/goes back at least on Jean Jacques Rousseau. The early political theories saw political institutions taking place however only as arenas in those political actions, which were determined however by more fundamental forces. In comparative the government teachings one was concerned with the institutional basis of the constitutional order, in particular the western world. It concerned thus formal institutions. Since center 70's began itself a new Institutionalismus to develop. Here it concerned a reaction to conventional behaviouristischen theory beginnings and to beginnings of the theory of the rational decision (rationally choice), which are to be regarded to a large extent as institution blind. In the Neo Institutionalismus, in demarcation to the classical Institutionalismus, apart from the formal institutions also non-formal is regarded. As far in detail the term is to be seized institution, remains contentious. Economiceconomics inspired scientists define the term more closely, than sociologically inspired scientists, who understand also cognitive rules of human acting as institution. As the smallest common denominator it can be considered that an institution is a monitoring system, which causes a certain order.
As previously mentioned the term institution is differently laid out by scientists of different fields. Different neo institutionalistische beginnings can similar be differentiated from each other. On side of the spectrum gives it the rational choice beginning and on the other side the sociological beginning, between them is the historical beginning, which integrates the rational choice beginning and the sociological beginning.
The participants in the rational Choice Institutionalismus are similarly to the micro-economic theory rational egoists, thus individuals. To supervise to meet assumed that contrary to the micro-economic theory criticized by sociologist much however that an institutional adjustment is necessary, in order the problem of the opportunistischen behavior and the associated necessity, agreements. Institutions therefore affect action and decision strategies of participants, without changing their goals and preferences. Differently than the original rational Choice beginning recognizes the rational Choice Institutionalismus the discrepancy between true and preferences shown on. Different around the form and structure of institutions are the aggregated result of individual decisions.
The sociological Institutionalismus assumes that that choice alternatives do not offer themselves to the decision maker automatically, but to be found to have. Time and information for decision making are however not for an unlimited period present. The necessary information about consequences of the possible choice alternatives over institutional networks are communicated. The finally made decision depends the accumulated bias on the structure of the system and as well as Counterbias. The structure of the system forms integrativ, by the observance of standards, like cultural routines and traditions.
The historical Institutionalismus uses both beginnings described above in the approach. Institutions are formal and informal procedures and standards, which are attached at organizations. The punchline of the historical Institutionalismus is the time and path dependence. Both is neglected in the preceding beginnings. Problems, solutions, decisions and choice alternatives meet, by their own autonomous Zeitlinie, in arenas of the decision. They are at the same time present and form so connections, dependent on their temporal existence in the system and the structural circumstances.
As previously mentioned, the current social research is essentially based between two Poland. On the one hand the order by historical efficiency and on the other hand the order by the of intended decisions. The Neo Institutionalismus demands the extension around additional order principles. They are to ensure a better illustration of the reality and are as criticism at the conventional theories to be understood. In the following these order principles are to be specified briefly.
1. The temporal order: Studies showed that the attention and thus the solution of a problem depend not only of its importance, but at least just as very much on its temporal emerging.
2. The normative order: The behavior of participants is based not only on the individual preferences, but at least just as much on cultural and social standards. I.e. should not only be consulted for the explanation by decisions, but also of preferences independent political structures, into which each individual is embedded.
3. The endogenous order: This order principle is the neo institutional contrast to the postulate that preferences exogenously to the decision-making process. Much more can be accepted that internal-institutional distributions of power and resources affect also the decision-making process.
4. The historical order: Here it goes affecting institutions historical processes around the question to what extent. The historical order should, contrary to the historical efficiency, which obvious Ineffizienz attention give. Under which conditions do adjustment and learning in institutions take When does it come to optimal, when to suboptimalen
5. The demographic order: With this order principle it, contrary to the conventional opinion, concerns not only that collective act institutions affected.
6. The symbolic order: The symbolic order assumes that, which actions a certain purpose do not only have, but also an important symbolic function.
We found here 2 articles.
I» Informal institution» Institutionalismus |
We found here 6 related websites.
Index | Privacy | Terms Of Use | Sitemap | Feedback