Governance of Terror: New Institutionalism and the Evolution of Terrorist Organizations

A preoccupation with network approaches in terrorism studies has inadvertently marginalized the fact that terrorist groups are subject to many of the same bureaucratic forces that impact all purposeful organizations. Because typical organizations are subsumed in the concept of networks, it is curious that scholars have been so quick to bypass more traditional models of organizations and bureaucracy that may help us understand network topology. This article relies on the new institutional approach to organizational behavior. Using the Coase theorem to explain the costs and benefits associated with different organizational structures, it follows that counterterrorism efforts may drive some groups toward greater autonomy while compelling others to adopt common bureaucratic processes, often referred to as isomorphism. By exploring the different costs that terror groups face and examining the characteristics of terrorists associated with different groups, organizational theory can help explain a divergent trend in terrorism research: leaderless jihad and increased bureaucratization.     

反思与进展:新制度主义政治学的制度变迁理论

新制度主义政治理论被认为更有助于解释制度稳定与维持,而对制度变迁解释乏力,因为它仅把制度变迁看作是由外生因素引起的。面对这种批评,近年来,新制度主义者提出制度变迁的内生理论,并试图与外生理论结合起来,把制度的起源、稳定维持和急剧变动看成是一个统一的演化过程,更加注重制度变迁的历时与空间维度,对制度变迁中观念与制度的相互作用给予了更多的关注,洞悉路径依赖的多样性及其解释制度变迁的可能性。另外,制度变迁的动力与具体方式,制度的分层等问题也成为研究制度变迁的议题。新制度主义者的这些努力大大丰富了新制度主义对制度变迁的解释,增强了其理论说服力,但并没有解决批评者提出的所有问题,同时还带来了不少新问题。     

制度变迁的发生机理:基于新制度主义的分析

新制度主义与制度变迁研究虽然在某种程度上存在张力,但同时也为理解制度变迁的发生机理提供了有益而丰富的理论资源,制度变迁研究理应成为新制度主义的重要内容。新制度主义各流派对于制度变迁的关注点不同、对于相关问题的阐释各有侧重。然而,基于制度主义视角分析制度变迁的发生机理,基本上可以从初始动力、运作机制、路径形成等三个方面予以考察。其中,外生变迁与内生变迁是对制度变迁根源的两种不同解读,自发演进与人为设计揭示的是制度变迁的持久动力与运作过程,而制度变迁的轨迹则由既有制度、权力、观念等因素所塑造。     

New Institutionalism and Minority Protection in the National Legislatures of Finland and Denmark

The individual camps within the new institutionalist paradigm generally argue that every political actor operates within a specific framework of opportunities and that the physical environment in which bargaining takes place is very important to understanding political outcomes. This article uses three of the new institutionalisms to answer two important questions concerning minority‐protecting institutions in the national constitutions of Denmark (Article 42) and Finland (Section 66). First, why were such institutions developed? Second, why were these institutions ultimately removed in Finland, but not in Denmark? For both countries, it is argued in this article that historical and discursive institutionalism are useful for understanding why such protections were originally considered necessary by particular political groups in society: the rise of socialism during the late twentieth and early twenty‐first centuries compelled non‐reformist parties to push strongly for constitutional change that would legalize powerful procedural tools that could delay and potentially reverse policy decisions passed in parliament. However, the article invokes rational choice institutionalism to explain why the outcomes in terms of the use of such institutions differed over time in the two countries: differences concerning the scope and timing of the relevant procedures compelled opposition parties to utilize them differently. As a result, the legislative process was often stalemated in Finland (and the procedures were subsequently removed in 1992), while in Denmark, the procedures contributed to a parliamentary culture based on consensus and pre‐legislative bargaining and hence, still remain.     

The New Institutionalism and EC Governance: The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis

The "new" institutionalisms" in rational choice and historical analysis are being applied with increasing sophistication and accuracy to the study of European Community governance. The basic premise of such institutional approaches is that EC institutions, once created, "take on a life of their own," acting as independent or intervening variables between the preferences and power of the member governments on the one hand, and the ultimate policy outputs of EC governance on the other. The challenge for institutionalist theory consists in constructing a precise analytical tool-box that will allow us to make specific predictions about the ways in which, and the conditions under which, EC institutions may exert such an independent causal influence. EC institutions matter, I suggest, insofar as they: lend stability to an existing institutional structure; shape any subsequent amendment of those institutions; allow individual member governments to be outvoted by qualified majority; cause member states to lose control of events through lock-ins; and subject member governments to the actions of supranational agents whose behavior they can control only imperfectly.     

The Limits of Rational Choice: New Institutionalism in the Test Bed of Central Banking Politics in Australia

This paper tests the explanatory capacities of different versions of new institutionalism by examining the Australian case of a general transition in central banking practice and monetary politics: namely, the increased emphasis on low inflation and central bank independence. Standard versions of rational choice institutionalism largely dominate the literature on the politics of central banking, but this approach (here termed RC1) fails to account for Australian empirics. RC1 has a tendency to establish actor preferences exogenously to the analysis; actors' motives are also assumed a priori ; actor's preferences are depicted in relatively static, ahistorical terms. And there is the tendency, even a methodological requirement, to assume relatively simple motives and preference sets among actors, in part because of the game theoretic nature of RC1 reasoning. It is possible to build a more accurate rational choice model by re-specifying and essentially updating the context, incentives and choice sets that have driven rational choice in this case. Enter RC2. However, this move subtly introduces methodological shifts and new theoretical challenges. By contrast, historical institutionalism uses an inductive methodology. Compared with deduction, it is arguably better able to deal with complexity and nuance. It also utilises a dynamic, historical approach, and specifies (dynamically) endogenous preference formation by interpretive actors. Historical institutionalism is also able to more easily incorporate a wider set of key explanatory variables and incorporate wider social aggregates. Hence, it is argued that historical institutionalism is the preferred explanatory theory and methodology in this case.     

21世纪美国新兴领导理论缘起与主张

步入21世纪后,顺应知识经济发展的要求,美国各类组织呈现出网络型、有机型特征.美国学术界对什么是有效领导的认识随之变化,提出了分担式领导、有机型领导、复杂领导、关系性领导、团队领导、学习型组织领导、真实领导等新兴领导理论.     

新中国70年机关事务治理的制度变迁:一项历史制度主义的考察

机关事务治理制度是国家治理体系的一项重要内容,有机融汇于新中国成立70年来的历史叙事之中。如何理解我国机关事务治理制度的历史变迁,是影响国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的一个重要命题。我国的机关事务治理从以"后勤服务"为主要表现形态的传统机关事务管理向以"运行保障"为主要表现形态的现代机关事务治理转型,经历了雏形渐成、改革发展、深化改革三次重大的制度变迁。基于历史制度主义的分析范式,机关事务治理制度变迁过程中制度背景、政治变量、路径依赖和关键节点的"混合体"模式深刻影响着机关事务治理制度的变迁历程,国家治理范式下的政治、经济、文化、社会因素则是制度变迁的动力所在。展望未来,机关事务治理现代化要正视新时代赋予的新要求,加强制度创新消解路径依赖逆向张力,推进机关事务治理职能法定化,完善多元协同的机关事务治理模式,从而推进新时代机关事务工作高质量发展。     

The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature

People who want to tackle tough social problems and achieve beneficial community outcomes are beginning to understand that multiple sectors of a democratic society—business, nonprofits and philanthropies, the media, the community, and government—must collaborate to deal effectively and humanely with the challenges. This article focuses on cross-sector collaboration that is required to remedy complex public problems. Based on an extensive review of the literature on collaboration, the article presents a propositional inventory organized around the initial conditions affecting collaboration formation, process, structural and governance components, constraints and contingencies, outcomes, and accountability issues.     

Cognitive and Normative Determinants of State Policymaking Behavior: Lessons from the Sociological Institutionalism

Although comparative state policy frameworks consider the roleof societal norms, few account for cognitive and normative imperativesthat originate outside a state's boundaries and are specificto promoting or impeding the adoption of particular policies.One approach that does so is the new institutionalism in sociology,which emphasizes legitimacy-seeking actors who face pressuresto conform to cultural rules, norms, and expectations, regardlessof outcomes. This article introduces comparative state policyresearchers to the sociological institutionalism, emphasizingbasic concepts and arguments and suggesting how reliance onthis framework can enable researchers to better integrate rational-actorand cultural-based views for understanding why states chooseparticular public policies. Interviews with national and stateexperts in Medicaid nursing-facility reimbursement illustratethe utility of the sociological institutionalism for comparativestate policy research.     

The Four Faces of Institutionalism: Public Policy and a Pluralistic Perspective

Contending conceptions of the new institutionalism claim to offer approaches that can develop generalizable social scientific theories of behavior. This article challenges that proposition, arguing that contingencies exist in which specific forms of institutionalism are best suited to addressing particular types of questions. Viewed through the prism of public policy, it develops the argument that 'policy dictates politics.' It suggests that four variants of institutionalism (historical, new economic, normative, and billiard ball) are each systematically most appropriate to examine the issues in the policy domains of redistribution, regulation, modernization, and liberalization, respectively.     

Representation in Local Politics: a Reconsideration and some New Evidence

The concept of 'representation', and the tensions within it, have exercised writers throughout the history of political theory. There is little consensus beyond the agreement that the meaning of representation should be made clear, and consistency sought, in any particular application. This paper takes as its starting point some key components of the concept of representation, and in the light of them examines the changing attitudes of both representatives and electors in British local government. Survey data accumulated over a 30-year period provides the basis for this analysis, enabling attention to be given to trends over the period. Changing expectations of representativeness—a component of representation that stresses 'resemblance' or 'symbolic identification'—prompt a questioning of its appropriateness for the understanding of local politics today. The evidence indicates that the contemporary demand for responsive and responsible local government has now displaced the historic concern with representativeness.     

缘由、启示、展望:理性选择制度主义与行为经济学的耦合分析

从新制度主义政治学与认知科学融会贯通的角度审视,理性选择制度主义与行为经济学具有联系密切的学理渊源和学科脉络,行为经济学的发展逻辑、演进脉络、学理贡献很可能为理性选择制度主义的理论调整、议题深化、方法更新提供深刻启示。行为经济学在理性、选择、制度等三个议题上的新见解,有助于理性选择制度主义从有限理性的经验应用、感性选择的行为指引、伦理取向的制度关怀等方面实现新的突破。在行为经济学影响下,理性选择制度主义在其未来发展中能够进一步缓和结构与能动的内在张力,主动吸纳行为经济学及其背后认知科学的前沿成果,深入推进政治领域尤其是政策议题的现实研究,并以认知为纽带促进新制度主义政治学的内在整合与认知转向。     

城市基层社会管理体制变迁中的公共服务供给碎片化——基于历史制度主义的分析范式

历史制度主义将宏观的外部环境和微观的政治行为连接起来,是观察城市基层社会管理体制变迁的重要中观视角。推动我国城市基层社会管理体制从"单位制"向"社区制"变迁的主要变量是:外部环境——城市化与人口流动;新观念——社区复兴与新公共服务;行动者——基层呼吁与政府创新;关键节点——两办转发民政部《意见》。两办转发民政部的《意见》直接为城市基层治理创新提供合法性来源,使其放开手脚,大胆探索和创新,但在我国城市基层社会管理体制变迁过程中也出现一些因需求增长和行政下沉带来的公共服务供给碎片化的意外后果。