Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Assignment CP 3

    Uploaded by

    gaurav shrama
    The institutional approach examines how political institutions shape society and citizen behavior. It was a dominant approach in early political science. Key characteristics include a focus on legal structures, assuming structures determine behavior, holistically examining whole systems, analyzing institutions historically, and making normative arguments. However, it was criticized for being too focused on formal structures, eurocentric, and unable to analyze developing countries. While behaviorism challenged some aspects, the new institutionalism still builds on the institutional approach's emphasis on studying political institutions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Assignment CP 3

    Uploaded by

    gaurav shrama
    55 views5 pages
    The institutional approach examines how political institutions shape society and citizen behavior. It was a dominant approach in early political science. Key characteristics include a focus on legal structures, assuming structures determine behavior, holistically examining whole systems, analyzing institutions historically, and making normative arguments. However, it was criticized for being too focused on formal structures, eurocentric, and unable to analyze developing countries. While behaviorism challenged some aspects, the new institutionalism still builds on the institutional approach's emphasis on studying political institutions.

    Original Title

    assignment cp 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The institutional approach examines how political institutions shape society and citizen behavior. It was a dominant approach in early political science. Key characteristics include a focus on legal structures, assuming structures determine behavior, holistically examining whole systems, analyzing institutions historically, and making normative arguments. However, it was criticized for being too focused on formal structures, eurocentric, and unable to analyze developing countries. While behaviorism challenged some aspects, the new institutionalism still builds on the institutional approach's emphasis on studying political institutions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    55 views5 pages

    Assignment CP 3

    Uploaded by

    gaurav shrama
    The institutional approach examines how political institutions shape society and citizen behavior. It was a dominant approach in early political science. Key characteristics include a focus on legal structures, assuming structures determine behavior, holistically examining whole systems, analyzing institutions historically, and making normative arguments. However, it was criticized for being too focused on formal structures, eurocentric, and unable to analyze developing countries. While behaviorism challenged some aspects, the new institutionalism still builds on the institutional approach's emphasis on studying political institutions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    lOMoARcPSD|18843309

    Institutional Approach and Characteristics

    Comparative Politics (University of Kerala)

    Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university


    Downloaded by Gaurav Sharma (gaurav2073ps@rla.du.ac.in)
    lOMoARcPSD|18843309

    Institutional Approach and


    Characteristics
    Before we begin with the discussion on the institutional approach, it is important to
    emphasise what institutions mean. A consistent and organised pattern of behaviour or
    activities established by custom or law can broadly be called an institution. Therefore, an
    institution means not only bodies like Parliament and Judiciary but also customs and or any
    other patterned behaviour of the society. You might be aware of the fact that marriage is an
    institution in a sociological study. The disciplinary variations in the definition of the term
    ‘institution’ should not be surprising. It can, therefore, be argued that political science
    as a discipline is the study of institutions. This tradition is not new at all and goes as back
    as to Aristotle. The primary concern of the approach can broadly be understood as to how
    do the institutions nurture the society, subjects or citizens for a better life. Aristotle
    compared as many as 158 constitutions to understand the normative question-which
    institutions work better. Machiavelli, for example, postulated advice to the institution of
    the Prince so that there shall be proper control of the subjects. Even when Hobbes was
    writing Leviathan (2009), he was concerned by the English civil war and therefore
    propagated for strong institutions. This list of thinkers who were concerned with
    institutions is non-exhaustive and need not be elaborated here, but it is essential to keep in
    mind that many thinkers since the beginning were concerned with the institutions in one
    way or the other. However, the institutional approach as a method became the mainstream
    much later with its leading proponents Carl Friedrich, James Bryce, A. L. Lowell, Herman
    Finer and Samuel Finer.
    Jean Blondel argued in this regard that James Bryce and Lowell are true founders of
    comparative politics as a distinct branch of study within the political discipline due to their
    prominent contribution to the field in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Bryce is
    known for his contributions in his the American Commonwealth (1888) and Modern
    Democracies (1921). In his work Modern Democracies, he tried to understand the
    workings of legislature and its decline. Lowell studied France, Switzerland, Germany, etc.,
    separately and sought to conduct a comparative study of the referendum and its impact. His
    well-known works include Government and Parties in Continental Europe (1896) and
    Public Opinion and Popular Government (1913). Although scholars before them
    undertook the study of institutions, Bryce and Lowell argued that such studies were
    incomplete and did not offer a nuanced argument. They stressed that it is not only essential
    to study the theoretical bases of the government, but
    it is equally important to highlight the ’practices of the government‘, which was missing in the
    earlier accounts of the institutional approach. They argued that a researcher must focus
    both on facts and theoretical arguments for a better understanding of the political system

    Downloaded by Gaurav Sharma (gaurav2073ps@rla.du.ac.in)


    lOMoARcPSD|18843309

    and better comparison. They suggested using both qualitative and quantitative methods in
    the collection of data.
    The institutional approach was one of the main pillars of political science discipline
    till the first half of the twentieth century. Many scholars tried to understand various
    institutions. For example, Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United States of
    America, compared governments of the USA and Europe and pointed to what the
    American government could learn from European governments (Doig, 1983). The
    institutional approach has certain specific characteristics that help us to understand the
    approach in details. Guy Peters (1999) lists the characteristics of the institutional approach
    as follows

    Characteristics of Institutional Approach

    Legalism
    The institutional approach gave law central place in a comparison of various institutions.
    Even in the example of Wilson mentioned above, we can notice the prominence of law
    through his emphasis on types of government. The prominence of law can broadly
    be attributed to the fact that the law constitutes the basis of political life and affect the
    behaviour of citizens in a significant way. Despite its centrality in the approach, scholars
    differ in their explanation of the relationship between law and society. Guy Peters (1999)
    holds that the study of law as the basis of political knowledge achieved its height in the
    Prussian State and thereafter in Germany.

    Structuralism
    For the scholars of the institutional approach, the structure determined the behaviour.
    Therefore, major institutional features, the ideal types of government- Parliamentary or
    Presidential, various models of parliamentary government, and presidential governments
    were extensively researched. The structures studied in this approach tended to be formal
    and constitutional. The assumption made by the researcher by the study of structures is that
    one could predict the behaviour of the system by identifying the salient aspects of the
    structure.

    Holism
    The researcher using the institutional approach tended to compare whole systems.

    Downloaded by Gaurav Sharma (gaurav2073ps@rla.du.ac.in)


    lOMoARcPSD|18843309

    Although it is tougher to make generalisations as the researcher has to study large systems,
    it equipped them with the complex nature of political life and the interplay of various
    aspects in affecting political behaviour.

    Historicism
    The contemporary political institutions are undoubtedly embedded in their historical
    conditions. The institutional approach consisted of a historical analysis of the institutions
    that the researcher is set to understand and analyse. The understanding of historical
    conditions helps the researcher to understand the pattern of development for appropriate
    prediction. The historical conditions also consider the role of the complex relationship
    between society and politics that offers a rich perspective of the political system.

    Normativity
    The institutional approach was normative in nature. It was concerned with the questions
    like what life ought to be and the role of good government in achieving it. The normative
    analysis of the institutionalists came under attack by the behaviourist scholars, which we
    will be dealt in the later sections.

    Criticisms
    The institutional approach, although was dominant in the discipline, has drawbacks that
    were pointed out mainly by behavioural scholars. The scientific revolution in the Political
    Science discipline meant that the speculative nature of approaches was dismissed for fact-
    based theories. We shall try to point few drawbacks that the institutional approach faces. As
    mentioned earlier, the institutional approach gave the structure a prominent role in the
    explanation of the political system. However, this structural nature of the approach did not
    consider the role of the individuals or groups in nurturing the system except for few ‘great
    men’. It is very evident from today’s globalised world that non-structural aspects of the
    state like corporates and other non-state actors hold a strong influence on the system as
    well. Further, Roy Macridis (1955) argued that the tendency of institutionalism to study
    formal institutions led the approach to be very euro-centric and parochial in nature.
    Almond and Coleman (1960) also pointed out that the institutional approach faced a crisis
    as it could not comprehend the political systems of the third world countries where the
    institutions were less or not developed like that of European counterparts.
    The historicism and normative analysis of the institutional approach came under attack
    with the behavioural revolution in the discipline. Behavioural scholars emphasised more on

    Downloaded by Gaurav Sharma (gaurav2073ps@rla.du.ac.in)


    lOMoARcPSD|18843309

    the facts to understand the political system and predict future behaviour, rallied for
    separation of fact from the norm, and engaged in understanding what is instead of the
    normative question of what ought to be. Further, holistic research of the approach, which
    has many advantages, makes it difficult not only to generalise but also compare. Macridis
    (1960) was right in this regard when he pointed out that comparative politics is more
    descriptive than comparative. To elaborate a little more on this, if we suppose research on
    the political system of India and England, we try to understand the political system through
    a holistic approach and study the formal institutions. This method describes the respective
    political systems rather than comparing them.

    Concluding remarks
    Despite its shortcomings, it can be argued that the institutional approach forms one of the
    pillars of political science research. The vast amount of research done even today on
    formal institutions and their relationship with society is a testament to the prominence of
    this approach. The behavioural revolution sure did point out the lacunae that approach has,
    but some of the shortcomings are addressed by the rise of the new institutional approach,
    which you will learn more about in the next chapter.

    Downloaded by Gaurav Sharma (gaurav2073ps@rla.du.ac.in)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy