Journals / Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3

New Institutional Politics

Yeni Kurumsal Siyaset

Pages
559–583
Publication Date
2015-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

So, in this study, rational choice, sociological and historical new institutional politics, as the three different school of new institutionalism, will be examined separately and there will be a debate on colliding and overlapping points of these schools

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:New institutional politics is an interdisciplinary movement that tries to reinstate the institutional politics to the center of the political science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the limits of formal-legal analyze, used by old institutional politics, have been criticized by behaviorists, rational choice and neo-Marxist movements, since 1950, the state was alienated from the center of the political studies as an independent variable.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:So, in this study, rational choice, sociological and historical new institutional politics, as the three different school of new institutionalism, will be examined separately and there will be a debate on colliding and overlapping points of these schools
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yeni kurumsal siyaset · kurumsal değişim · rasyonel tercih

Abstract

New institutional politics is an interdisciplinary movement that tries to reinstate the institutional politics to the center of the political science. After the limits of formal-legal analyze, used by old institutional politics, have been criticized by behaviorists, rational choice and neo-Marxist movements, since 1950, the state was alienated from the center of the political studies as an independent variable. Since 1980, neo institutional politics, raised as a reaction to this development, has been developing a new description and understanding of the institution which goes beyond the limitations of the old one. The rise and change of the political institutions and the interactions between political institutions and the actors, are being retheorized, by depending on informal rules and conventions as much as formal rules, and pointing out cultural factors as much as legal factors. So, in this study, rational choice, sociological and historical new institutional politics, as the three different school of new institutionalism, will be examined separately and there will be a debate on colliding and overlapping points of these schools

Özet

Yeni kurumsal siyaset, kurumsal siyaset yaklaşımını yeniden siyaset biliminin merkezine almayı hedefleyen disiplinler arası bir akımdır. Eski kurumsal siyaset yaklaşımının kullandığı formel-yasal analizin sınırlılıklarının, 1950’lerden itibaren davranışsalcı, rasyonel tercihçi ve neo-Marksist yaklaşımlar tarafından yoğun bir şekilde eleştirilmesinin ardından, devlet, bağımsız bir değişken olarak siyasal çalışmaların merkezinden uzaklaştırılmıştır. Bu gelişmeye tepki olarak doğan yeni kurumsal siyaset çalışmaları, eski kurumsalcılığın formelyasal analizinin sınırlarını aşan yeni bir kurum tanımı ve anlayışını 1980’lerden itibaren geliştirmektedirler. Siyasal kurumların doğuşu, değişimi ve siyasal kurumlar ile failler arasındaki ilişkiler, formel olduğu kadar informel kurallara ve konvansiyonlara dayanılarak, yasal olduğu kadar kültürel faktörlere dikkat çekerek yeniden teorileştirilmektedir. Bu akım içinde ekonomi, sosyoloji ve tarih disiplinlerinin yöntem ve bulgularından geniş bir şekilde yararlanılmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada, yeni kurumsal siyasetin üç farklı ekolü olan, rasyonel tercih, sosyolojik ve tarihsel yeni kurumsal siyaset ayrı ayrı ele alınarak, söz konusu farklı ekoller arasındaki çatışma ve kesişmeler üzerine tartışma yapılacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

KALKAN, B. (2015). New Institutional Politics. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3, 559–583. https://ajindex.com/articles/70248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Acemoğlu, D., & Robinson, J. (2013).
  2. Why Nations Fail, The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, New York: Crown Bussiness. Aoki, Masahiko (2013).
  3. Comperative Institutional Analysis, New York: Edward Elgar Publishing. Azfar, O. (2001). The Logic of Collective Action. W. F. Shughart, & L. Razzolini (Ed.), içinde, Elgar Companion to Public Choice (s. 59-82). London: Edward Elgar. Barnett, R. E. (2014). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. London: Oxford University Press.
  4. Brennan, G., & Hamlin, A. (2001). Constitutional Choice. W. F. Shughart, & L. Razzolini (Ed.) içinde, Eşgar Companion to Public Choice (s. 117-139). New York: Edward Elgar. Buchanan, J.,&Tullock, G. (1962). Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. New York: New York University of Michigan Press.
  5. Buttler, E. (2008). Public Choice A Primer. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs. Collier ve Collier (1991).Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, andRegime Dynamics in Latin America, New York: Princeton UniversityPress.
  6. Dahl, R. (2000). On Democracy. New York: Yale University Press.
  7. Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell,W. W. (1991),
  8. Introduction, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Dolfsma, W. (2011). Government Failure: Four Types. Journal of Economic Issues, 45 (3), s. 593-604.
  10. Dunleavy, P. (1991).Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Duverger, M. (1974).Siyasi Partiler.Cev. Ergun Ozbudun. Ankara:
  11. Bilgi Yayinevi. Erdoğan, M. (2011). Anayasa Hukuku. Ankara:
  12. Orion Yayınları.
  13. Fligstein, N. (1996). Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions. American Sociological Review,61 (4), s. 656-673.
  14. Geanakoplos, J. (2004). Three Brief Proofs of Arrow’s Imposibility Theorem, Economic Theory, 26, s. 211-215.
  15. Green, D., ve Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New York: Yale University Press.
  16. Grief, Avner (1998). “Historical and Comperative Analysis”, New Institutional Economics, 88 (2), s. 80-84.
  17. Hannan, M.T. veFreeman J. (1977). ThePopulation Echology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), s. 929-964.
  18. Havard, H. (2002). Rational Choice. D. Marsh (Ed.) içinde, Theory and Methods in Political Science (s. 65-89). London: Palgrave. Hayek, F. A. (1947). The Use of Knowledge in Society. F. A. Hayek (Ed.) içinde, Individualism and Economic Or