Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:58:24.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crisis, Choice, and Change in Retrospect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Gabriel A. Almond ,
Scott C. Flanagan  and
Robert J. Mundt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE ‘NEW INSTITUTIONALISM’ HAS BEEN THE MOST VISIBLE movement in American political science during the last decade. It is a recoil from reductionism that is said to have dominated the political science of the previous decades. During the American Political Science Association presidency of Charles E. Lindblom in 1981, with Theodore Lowi and Sidney Tarrow as co-chairs of the Program Committee, it was decided that all titles of panels and round tables at the annual meeting were to have ‘and the state’ tacked on. The implication was that the behavioural revolution had resulted in the neglect of the power and autonomy of the state. But this adding on ‘and the state’ had very little effect on the content of the papers, and seemed primarily to have ‘buzzword’ significance. A second manifestation of this discomfort was an article in the American Political Science Review of 1984 by James March and Johan Olsen, entitled ‘The New Institutionalism; The Organizational Factor in Political Life’, followed by a book by the same two authors called Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , 01 July 1992 , pp. 345 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 March, James and Olsen, Johan, ‘The New Institutionalism: The organizational Factor in Political Life’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, 1984, pp. 734–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 March, James and Olsen, Johan, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York, The Free Press, 1989.Google Scholar

3 Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda (eds), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Shepsle, Kenneth, ‘Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions’ in Weisberg, Herbert, Political Science: The Science of Politics, New York, Agathon Press, 1986 Google Scholar; McCubbins, Matthew, Noll, Roger and Weingast, Barry, ‘Positive and Normative Models of Procedural Rights: An Integrative Approach to Administrative Procedures’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 6, special issue, 1990 Google Scholar; Bates, Robert H. (ed.), Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective, Berkeley, California, University of California Press, 1988 Google Scholar; North, Douglass C., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Rogers Smith, ‘If Politics Matters: Implications for a New Institutionalism’, unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting or the American Political Science Association. Washington DC, August 1991; Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, ‘Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a New Institutionalism’, unpublished paper presented at the same meeting in August 1991.

6 op. cit.

7 op. cit.

8 Almond, Gabriel A., Flanagan, Scott C. and Mundt, Robert, Crisis, Choice, and Change: Historical Studies of Political Development, Boston, Little Brown, 1973.Google Scholar

9 Almond, Gabriel A., ‘Determinacy‐Choice, Stability‐Change: Some Thoughts on a Contemporary Polemic in Political Theory’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 5, No. 1, Winter 1970, pp. 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Easton, David, The Political System, New York, Alfred Knopf, 1953;Google Scholar Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James, The Politics of the Developing Areas, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1960 Google Scholar; Apter, David, The Politics of Modernization, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1965;Google Scholar Pye, Lucian W., Politics, Personality and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar

11 Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional Society, New York, The Free Press, 1958;Google Scholar Deutsch, Karl, ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, 09 1961, pp. 493 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lipset, S. M., ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, 09 1959;Google Scholar James Coleman, ‘Conclusion’ in Gabriel A. Almond and James Coleman, op. cit.

12 Downs, Anthony, Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper & Row, 1957 Google Scholar; Riker, William, The Theory of Political Coalitions, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar

13 Rustow, Dankwart, Philosophers and Kings, New York, Braziller, 1970 Google Scholar; Pye, Lucian W., Mao‐Tse‐Tung: The Man in the Leader, New York, Basic Books, 1976.Google Scholar

14 Tucker, Robert C., Politics as Leadership, Lexington, Kentucky, University of Missouri Press. 1981.Google Scholar

15 North, Douglass C., Institution, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. viii.Google Scholar

16 William Riker The Theory of Political Coalitions, op. cit.; Leiserson, Michael, ‘Factions and Coalitions in One‐Party Japan’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 62, No. 3, 09 1968, pp. 770 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; William A. Gamson, ‘A Theory or Coalition Formation’, American Sociological Review, 1961, pp. 373–82; Groennings, Sven, Kelley, E. W. and Leiserson, Michael, The Study of Coalition Behavior, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970;Google Scholar Hinckley, Barbara, Coalitions and Politics, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanwich, 1981;Google Scholar Browne, Eric, Coalition Theories, Beverly Hills, California, Sage Professional Papers, Comparative Politics Series, 01–043, 1973.Google Scholar

17 Lijphart, Arend, The Politics of Accommodation, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968 Google Scholar; Democracies, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1984.

18 Abram de Swaan, ‘An Empirical Model or Coalition Formation as an N‐ Person Game or Policy Distance Minimization’, in Groennings, S., Kelley, E. W. and Leiserson, M. (eds), The Study of Coalition Behavior, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970, pp. 424–44;Google Scholar Michael Leiserson, ‘Power and Ideology in Coalition Behavior’ in Groennings, Kelley and Leiserson, ibid., pp. 323–35; Axelrod, Robert, Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Goals with Applications to Politics, Chicago, Markham, 1970.Google Scholar

One approach typical or the efforts during this period to introduce ideological considerations into the minimal winning coalition model was to position the contenders on one fixed ideological or left‐right policy continuum and add in the assumption that only contiguous contenders could form coalitions, meaning that no coalitions were possible which skipped over one or more actors within their ideological range.

19 One potentially winning coalition dominates another if all the members of the first prefer it to the second. This concept of dominance was used with the member utilities to develop a procedure for identifying the predicted coalition outcome(s).

20 In Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. David Kewman and Alvin Rabushka, Forecasting Political Events: Hong Kong's Future, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita reports finding extremely high levels of inter‐coder reliability in country expert estimates for the three bits of information needed to operate his expected utility model‐issue positions, issue salience and power.

21 Almond, Gabriel A., ‘Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science’, PS, Vol. 21, Fall 1988, pp. 828–42.Google Scholar

22 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Forecasting Policy Decisions: An Expected Utility Approach to Post‐Khorneini Iran’, PS, Vol. 17, Spring 1984, pp. 26–36; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita in Bueno de Mesquita, Newman and Rabushka, op. cit.