Explaining the determinants and processes of institutional change

Bedock, Camille

doi:10.1057/fp.2014.21

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Present in the frameworks derived byMahoney (2000),Lindner (2003), andGlöckler et al (2017) and consistently identified within the broader literature, for example, is the issue of intentionality, or the role and agency of individual actors and their relative power to affect change or preserve existing arrangements.Another element is the direction of action, particularly the preferences of individual actors and their rationale for either maintaining existing arrangements or fostering change. This second element of a potential conceptual scaffolding is likewise present in the aforementioned frameworks byLindner (2003),Bedock (2014), andGlöckler et al (2017), as well as in the broader literature reviewed herein.When arrayed on opposing sides of a matrix, these general elements of our scaffolding-termed Intentionality and Directionality-allow for the identification of four discrete modes of institutional stability (Figure2). On the Intentionality axis, we can conceptualize stability as arising from actions that are either purposeful or passive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Though the full body of reviewed works failed to demonstrate a consistent conceptualization of institutional stability, our review did identify the existence of several frameworks encompassing multiple mechanisms of institutional stability. Bedock (2014), for instance, summarizes three generalized sources of stability identified elsewhere in the literature: risk aversion, transaction costs, and increasing returns. Lindner (2003) provides an overview of four mechanisms of institutional reproduction: the bargaining power of anti-change agents, the interdependence between policy sub-fields, the costs of switching institutional constructs, and an ability for the institution to adapt or accommodate change.…”

Section: Institutional Stability: a Distillation Of Modes And Narrative Review Of The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Costs associated with institutional change (Bedock, 2014;Duit et al, 2010;Greif & Laitin, 2004;Lindner, 2003;Pollack, 1996;Veenendaal, 2017); • Uncertainties associated with benefits of change (Ayson, 2005;Bisschops & Beunen, 2019;Brousseau et al, 2011;Hall & Thelen, 2009).…”

Section: Mode and Description Mechanisms And Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisiting institutional stability: A systematic review and distillations of dominant modes

Galik

Chelbi

2021

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of institutional stability has been explored from multiple disciplinary lenses and is associated with a variety of theories and frameworks, masking important variation in the mechanisms and modes of institutional stability, and complicating our understanding of how and why institutions are maintained over time. This is particularly salient to questions of environmental governance, where the recent pace and magnitude of both political and environmental change necessitates more careful attention to the capacity of existing institutions to persist or adapt. Here, we conduct a systematic review to examine the treatment of institutional stability in the literature to determine whether dominant or consistent conceptualizations of institutional stability are present. Beginning with a list of 21 synonyms for stability as used in the literature, we assembled a raw dataset of 23,379 manuscripts in print or published between 1976 and August 2019. Papers were then screened to ensure a theoretical or empirical analysis of institutional stability, resulting in a final dataset of 165 unique manuscripts. From our review, we propose two separate axes-directionality and intentionality-upon which four separate modes of stability may be arrayed. Termed passive stability, active stability, intended inaction, and failed action, we find that each is characterized by distinct mechanisms and captures specific concepts detailed in the extant literature. Though we believe our typology to have the potential to provide for a more precise analysis of institutional stability and associated policy and resource outcomes, further research is necessary to demonstrate its applicability.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Institutional Stability: a Distillation Of Modes And Narrative Review Of The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting institutional stability: A systematic review and distillations of dominant modes

Galik

Chelbi

2021

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See Becher et al, 2017;Bedock, 2014Bedock, , 2017Koß, 2018 to understand individual legislative, and executive support for (and obstruction of) institutional change in representative democracies. Research designs for causal inference are now widely employed throughout the social sciences (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do political elites persist? Political selection, political inequality and empirical historical research

Coppenolle

2020

Fr Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do political elites persist? In this article, I review selected research on who legislators are, how democratic institutions affect their selection and behaviour, as well as their persistence over the long run. The extent to which political elites persist, forms a measure of the level of political inequality between elites and citizens. I argue that political inequality in societies can be measured as the extent to which the same individuals, or families, monopolize political power. This operationalization travels well through space and time. In extreme forms of non-competitiveness, power is passed on within political dynasties, and power becomes essentially hereditary.Democratic competition is meant to break up the extreme political inequality associated with absolute, hereditary politics. We still insufficiently understand the exact institutional reforms under which hereditary political selection declined during European countries' evolution towards representative democracy (e.g. Offerlé, 1993) from the individual interests of those who decided to reform (Benoit, 2004, Capoccia andZiblatt 2010). Yet these questions were crucial for early elite theorists (e.g.Michels ([1911([ ] 1968([ ), Mosca ([1896([ ] 1939) who warned that all power has a tendency to become hereditary. To understand how institutions affect political selection, and long-run political inequality, we need to understand why individuals support (and largely continue to support) 1 the institutional equilibriums that make up their representative democracies. For this non-exhaustive review I draw on examples from the study of political inequality and political selection, broadly defined, and present some of my own recent contributions to this literature, about historical lotteries, legislative elites, and political dynasties in France and Britain. The focus in this work on highly unequal, early democratising countries addresses two important research

show abstract

Barriers (and catalysts) of institutional change: The (almost) non-reform of the Portuguese electoral system (1983–2021)

Carvalho

Freire

2023

Z Vgl Polit Wiss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining the determinants and processes of institutional change

Cited by 6 publications

References 46 publications

Revisiting institutional stability: A systematic review and distillations of dominant modes

Revisiting institutional stability: A systematic review and distillations of dominant modes

How do political elites persist? Political selection, political inequality and empirical historical research

Barriers (and catalysts) of institutional change: The (almost) non-reform of the Portuguese electoral system (1983–2021)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About