Was soll und wie betreibt man vergleichende Diktaturforschung? Ein forschungsprogrammatischer Essay in evolutorischer Perspektive
Author(s)
Patzelt, Werner J.Keywords
Sociology & anthropologyPolitical science
Politikwissenschaft
Soziologie, Anthropologie
Political Process, Elections, Political Sociology, Political Culture
Sociology of Knowledge
Wissenssoziologie
politische Willensbildung, politische Soziologie, politische Kultur
interest
institution
problem consciousness
perspective
institutionalism
pressure group
diagnosis
historical development
interdisciplinarity
institutionalization
dictatorship
research approach
politician
authoritarianism
research deficit
political interest
historische Entwicklung
Institutionalismus
Interessengruppe
Diktatur
Autoritarismus
Diagnose
Institution
politisches Interesse
Perspektive
Interesse
Interdisziplinarität
Problembewusstsein
Politiker
Forschungsansatz
Forschungsdefizit
Institutionalisierung
descriptive study
theory application
applied research
deskriptive Studie
Theorieanwendung
anwendungsorientiert
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/31158Abstract
Der Verfasser arbeitet grundlegende Probleme einer vergleichenden Autokratieforschung aus der Perspektive der Erkenntnistheorie und der Soziologie der Wissenschaft heraus. Die vergleichende Autokratieforschung krankt nach seiner Ansicht an unklaren Vorstellungen über ihr Thema, einer ungenügenden Zusammenarbeit zwischen Politikwissenschaftlern und Historikern, einer zu engen Verbindung der Forschung mit politischen Interessen, einem 'democracy bias' bei der Bestimmung der Forschungsagenda, an Typologien ohne historische Tiefe, zu unpräzisen Vorstellungen über die Ähnlichkeit und Unähnlichkeit von Phänomenen und fehlenden 'Algorithmen' bei der Erkennung von Mustern autoritärer Strukturen. Der Problemdiagnose folgt ein innovatives Rezept für eine systematisch angelegte, kumulative und interdisziplinäre vergleichende Forschung über autoritäre Regime. Es basiert auf dem unter Federführung des Autors in Dresden entwickelten Evolutorischen Institutionalismus, einer neuen Variante des Historischen Institutionalismus. (ICF2)'Comparative research on authoritarian regimes is at the core of political science. But it must cope with some serious problems: unclear conceptions of the topic itself, insufficient cooperation between political scientists and historians, linkages with political interests that are too close for comfort, an uncontrolled 'democracy bias' when defining the research agenda, typologies without historical depth, unclear conceptions of similarity and dissimilarity, and missing 'algorithms' of pattern recognition with respect to authoritarian structures and institutional developments. After discussions on these issues from the angles of both epistemology and the sociology of science, handles for more systematic, cumulative, and interdisciplinary comparative research on authoritarian regimes in an historical perspective are derived from evolutionary institutionalism, a recent variant of historical institutionalism. In particular, its approaches towards an analysis of 'institutional architecture', 'institutional evolution', and 'institutional morphology' are linked by many examples, with comparative research on authoritarian regimes.' (author's abstract)|
Date
2012-07-06Type
journal articleIdentifier
oai:gesis.izsoz.de:document/311581612-9008
http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/31158
urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-311583
Copyright/License
Deposit Licence - Keine Weiterverbreitung, keine BearbeitungCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Governance Reform Under Real-World Conditions : Citizens, Stakeholders, and VoiceOdugbemi, Sina; Jacobson, Thomas (Washington, DC : World Bank, 2012-05-29)This book is a contribution to efforts to improve governance systems around the world, particularly in developing countries. It offers a range of innovative approaches and techniques for dealing with the most important nontechnical challenges that prevent many of those efforts from being successful or sustainable. By so doing, the book sets out the groundwork for governance reform initiatives. Its overarching argument is that the development community is not lacking the tools needed for technical solutions to governance challenges. The toolbox is overflowing; best practice manuals in various areas of interest tumble out of seminars and workshops. However, difficulties arise when attempts are made to apply what are often excellent technical solutions under real-world conditions. Human beings, acting either alone or in groups small and large, are not as amenable as are pure numbers. And they cannot be put aside. In other words, in the real world, reforms will not succeed, and they will certainly not be sustained, without the correct alignment of citizens, stakeholders, and voice.
-
Political Alternation as a Restraint on Investing in Influence : Evidence from the Post-Communist TransitionMilanovic, Branko; Horowitz, Shale; Hoff, Karla (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2008-10)The authors develop and implement a method for measuring the frequency of changes in power among distinct leaders and ideologically distinct parties that is comparable across political systems. The authors find that more frequent alternation in power is associated with the emergence of better governance in post communist countries. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that firms seek durable protection from the state, which implies that expected political alternation is relevant to the decision whether to invest in influence with the governing party or, alternatively, to demand institutions that apply predictable rules, with equality of treatment, regardless of the party in power.
-
Development Strategies : Integrating Governance and GrowthLevy, Brian; Fukuyama, Francis (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014-09-02)A frontier challenge for development strategy is to move beyond prescribing optimal economic policies, and instead -- taking a broad view of the interactions between economic, political and social constraints and dynamics -- to identify entry points capable of breaking a low-growth logjam, and initiating a virtuous spiral of cumulative change. The paper lays out four distinctive sequences via which the different dimensions might interact and evolve over time, and provides country-specific illustrations of each. Each sequence is defined by the principal focus of its initial step: 1) State capacity building provides a platform for accelerated growth via improved public sector performance and enhanced credibility for investors; strengthened political institutions and civil society come onto the agenda only over the longer term; 2) Transformational governance has as its entry point the reshaping of a country's political institutions. Accelerated growth could follow, insofar as institutional changes enhance accountability, and reduce the potential for arbitrary discretionary action -- and thereby shift expectations in a positive direction; 3) For 'just enough governance', the initial focus is on growth itself, with the aim of addressing specific capacity and institutional constraints as and when they become binding -- not seeking to anticipate and address in advance all possible institutional constraints; 4) Bottom-up development engages civil society as an entry point for seeking stronger state capacity, lower corruption, better public services, improvements in political institutions more broadly -- and a subsequent unlocking of constraints on growth. The sequences should not be viewed as a technocratic toolkit from which a putative reformer is free to choose. Recognizing that choice is constrained by history, the paper concludes by suggesting an approach for exploring what might the scope for identifying practical ways forward in specific country settings.