The Problem of Institutional Constraint

Grafstein, Robert

doi:10.2307/2131459

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact there are many institutionalist schools.' However, focusing on the question of human nature and competing models of man, there are two dominant institutionalist traditions: one inspired by rational choice (Moe 1984;Williamson 1985;Levi 1988;Shepsle 1989;North 1990;Dunleavy 1991;Ostrom 1986) and a sociological approach (Krasner 1984;Grafstein 1988;March & Olsen 1989;Meyer & Rowan 1983;Steinmo & Thelen 1992). Although the two share a range of key propositions, they have by and large been depicted as competing and incompatible (Krasner 1988;Moe 1984;Steinmo & Thelen 1992;Hall & Taylor 1994;cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many have argued for reconciliation and mutual enrichment (Katznelson 1986;Moe 1987;Hall & Taylor 1994;Heclo 1994) but few have proposed an institutional perspective which can embrace both egoistic, calculating individuals and sincere social beings (cf. however Granovetter 1985;Grafstein 1988;Wolfe 1989; Thompson et al 1990). To develop such an approach we have to reinvestigate the meaning and interrelation of institutions, culture, social interaction, and human identity and motivation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rediscovering reasonable rationality in institutional analysis

Nørgaard

1996

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years institutions have regained their lost prominence throughout the social sciences. A host of rules, routines, and norms shape social and political interaction, the new institutionalists agree. However a sociological and a rational choice approach have disagreed on a number of issues, most notably on how institutions shape political action. Notwithstanding this, the conception of man and human rationality is the root of most controversies. In contrast to other presentations this essay argues that the most promising aspects of the two traditions are already converging. If the rational choice approach abandons its narrow conception of rationality, and if the sociological approach concedes that human beings have a capacity of conscious reflection over goals and values irrespective of context, one of the critical obstacles for mutual theoretical enrichment has been swept away. A more reasonable conception of rationality sees preferences as culturally bounded and shaped by experiences constrained by institutions. Within this framework, dialogue between the two approaches is possible; different theories of institutional change can be seen as being complementary or as rivals; a host of politically germane issues can reenter our research agenda.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rediscovering reasonable rationality in institutional analysis

Nørgaard

1996

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed there is a strong argument that no definitive definition has been reached in current research, reflected in debates over the past 30 years, debates between those authors proposing institutions are constraining on behaviour and those authors seeing institutions as mere human creations. Grafstein (1988), for example, develops an understanding of institutions as significant human creations which are dynamic, not static artefacts that structure human interactions (1988, p. 577). However Grafstein reflects the two strands of thought on institutions, using examples from Marxist theory, where institutions have clear ontological status, as well as rational choice theory, where institutions are products, aggregates, of human decisions.…”

Section: Institutions and Institutionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘No cultural policy to speak of’ – Liverpool 2008

O’Brien

2010

Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent academic work on European Capital of Culture (ECoC) has fallen into two broad categories: either evaluative, based on assessing the effectiveness of hosting ECoC for policy agendas; or critical, questioning the rationale behind ECoC and its impact on the cities that have held the title. However, little attention has been paid to the role ECOC has played in the 'modernisation' of urban governance, particularly in the UK. This article seeks to explore ECoC's role in city governance by examining the specific case of Liverpool, ECoC 2008 and the related local government agencies in the city, particularly Liverpool City Council (LCC). A narrative of the history of cultural policy within LCC, using institutionalist theory, shows that cultural policy has had a difficult evolution within a city that was initially reluctant to devote institutional capacity and resources to cultural matters. Problems in the build up to 2008 reflect the influence of 'institutions' in Liverpool's political culture and history. The influence of these institutions is at the root of the uncertainty surrounding the long-term viability of cultural policy in the city. As a corollary to the exploration of the role of institutions in Liverpool, a concluding discussion of ECoC's role in city governance offers prospects for the cultural policy settlement within Liverpool in the post-ECoC 2008 era, particularly focusing on the role of Liverpool's cultural sector as a motivator for cultural policy. ResumenLos trabajos académicos recientes sobre la Capital Europea de la Cultura (ECoC) han identificado dos grandes categorías: una evaluativa, basada en la efectividad de acoger la ECoC para la agenda política, y otra crítica, cuestionando la racionalidad que subyace detrás de ECoC y su impacto en las ciudades que han logrado este título. Sin embargo, se ha prestado poca atención al papel que la ECoC ha jugado en la modernización del gobierno municipal, particularmente en el Reino Unido. Este artículo busca explorar el papel de la ECoC en el gobierno de la ciudad examinando el caso específico de Liverpool, Capital Europea de la Cultura 2008, y la relación de los entes gubernamentales locales en la ciudad, particularmente el Liverpool City Council (LCC).Una narración de la historia de la política cultura en el LCC, utilizando la teoría institucionalista, muestra que la política cultural ha tenido una difícil evolución dentro de una ciudad que era inicialmente reticente a dedicar la capacidad y los recursos institucionales a temas culturales. Los problemas en el desarrollo de Liverpool 2008 reflejan la influencia de las 'instituciones' en la historia y en la *cultura política de la ciudad. La influencia de estas instituciones es la raíz de las incertidumbres que rodean la viabilidad a largo plazo de la política cultural en la ciudad. Como corolario a la exploración del papel de las instituciones en Liverpool, se plantea una discusión final sobre el papel de la ECoC en el gobierno de la ciudad que plantea las expectativas para el establecimiento de la cu...

show abstract

“…As argued by Robert Grafstein, this query pertains to the role that rational choice theory gives institutions in its analysis of policy behavior (Grafstein, 1988).…”

Section: The Problem In Foreign Policy Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis

Carlsnæs

1992

International Studies Quarterly

338

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The starting point of this article is the argument that scholars of foreign policy-in contrast to international relations theorists-have not sufficiently faced up to the explanatory implications of the agency-structure issue in the philosophy of social science. This claim is discussed with reference to four fundamental perspectives in foreign policy analysis, defined in terms of ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding the nature of social order and individual action. Taking its cue primarily from recent philosophical discussions within sociology and social theory, it proposes a metatheoretical framework based on a dynamic conception of the interplay over time between interpretative, purposive agents and a structural domain defined in terms of both constraining and enabling properties. On the basis of this suggested solution to the agency-structure problem, the article subsequently elaborates an explanatory framework premised on a morphogenetic conception of the contextually bound nature of the foreign policy behavior of states, arguing that this reconceptualization can incorporate not only (1) certain rationality assumptions of action, (2) psychological-cognitive explanatory approaches, and (3) the role, broadly speaking, of situational-structural factors, but also (4) an institutional perspective combined with (5) comparative case study analysis. ' The suggested geographical division of this debate is by no means watertight. Thus, e.g., although British to the core, the two authors of what is arguably the most accomplished recent inquiry into the philosophical foundations of international relations theory (Hollis and Smith, 1990) have nevertheless chosen to discuss the agency-structure issue primarily in terms of the level-of-analysis problem a la amnzicain. For an American response to this way of tackling the subject matter, see Alexander Wendt's recent review of their book (Wendt, 1991), and for the ensuing transAtlantic debate, Hollis and Smith (1991, 1992) and Wendt (1992).

show abstract

The Problem of Institutional Constraint

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Rediscovering reasonable rationality in institutional analysis

Rediscovering reasonable rationality in institutional analysis

‘No cultural policy to speak of’ – Liverpool 2008

The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About