About: Political Studies is an academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & Democracy. It has an ISSN identifier of 0032-3217. Over the lifetime, 2876 publications have been published receiving 100834 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The term "New Institutionalism" is a term that now appears with growing frequency in political science as mentioned in this paper, and there is considerable confusion about just what the new institutionalism is, how it differs from other approaches, and what sort of promise or problems it displays.
Abstract: The ‘new institutionalism’ is a term that now appears with growing frequency in political science. However, there is considerable confusion about just what the ‘new institutionalism’ is, how it differs from other approaches, and what sort of promise or problems it displays. The object of this essay is to provide some preliminary answers to these questions by reviewing recent work in a burgeoning literature. Some of the ambiguities surrounding the new institutionalism can be dispelled if we recognize that it does not constitute a unified body of thought. Instead, at least three different analytical approaches, each of which calls itself a ‘new institutionalism’, have appeared over the past fifteen years. We label these three schools of thought: historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism.’ All of these approaches developed in reaction to the behavioural perspectives that were influential during the 1960s and 1970s and all seek to elucidate the role that institutions play in the determination of social and political outcomes. However, they paint quite different pictures of the political world. In the sections that follow, we provide a brief account of the genesis of each school and characterize what is distinctive about its approach to social and political problems. We then compare their analytical strengths and weaknesses, * An earlier version of this paper WLS presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and at a Conference on ‘What is Institutionalism Now? at the
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the conflict between capitalism and socialism is not necessarily in competition or conflict with each other, at least not conceptually (whether they could in practice coexist with one another is a different and empirical question).
Abstract: C A P I T A L IS M and socialism are generally taken to be irreconcilable opposites, and the conflict between their adherents has seemed so intense as to threaten the survival of the human species. In practice, no doubt, all sorts of compromises, accommodations and mixtures of the two are possible, but conceptually, considered as blueprints for the organization of society, capitalist and socialist ownership of the means of production appear mutually exclysive. I shall argue that this is by no means the case-that capitalism and socialism are, in fact, conceptually quite compatible; that a society be at the same time capitalist and socialist (by that I do not refer to a 'mixed economy') involves no contradiction. For it turns out, on closer examination than the matter usually receives, that capitalism and socialism are features of different parts of the social structure, and are therefore not necessarily in competition or conflict with one another-at least, not conceptually (whether they could in practice coexist with one another is a different and empirical question, which is raised by, for example, 'functionalist' theories of social structure'). In brief, while capitalism is a feature of society's economic organization, socialism is rather an aspect of its political system. In fact, as we shall see, socialism is a part of political democracy, and any democratic political system is therefore necessarily socialist.
TL;DR: The term "governance" is popular but imprecise. It has at least six uses, referring to: the minimal state; corporate governance: the new public management; good governance; socio-cybernetic syste...
Abstract: The term ‘governance’ is popular but imprecise. It has at least six uses, referring to: the minimal state; corporate governance: the new public management; ‘good governance’; socio-cybernetic syste...
TL;DR: A review of the literature on policy transfer can be found in this paper, where the authors focus on the transfer of specific policies as a result of strategic decisions taken by actors inside and outside government.
Abstract: It has always existed but there can be no doubt that the rapid growth in communications of all types since the Second World War has accelerated the process. Not surprisingly, the increase in policy transfer has led to the development of interest in the topic among students of comparative politics and public policy. This article reviews this literature which is of two types. First, there are studies which do not use the concept but which often throw considerable light on policy transfer. Second, there is a growing body of material dealing specifically with the process. Both types of study are now common. As an example, the June 1994 edition of Political Studies included two articles dealing with the issues discussed here. Walsh’s examination of exchange rate policy in France and Germany is a good representative of the first type of study. He does not discuss transfer, but shows how international capital flows gave rise to tensions in the European Monetary System which, in turn, led to policy convergence. In contrast, Coleman’s analysis of policy convergence in banking directly addressed the question of how international economic changes affect policy goals, policy content, policy instruments and policy style. The aim of this article is to present a critical review of the literature on policy transfer in order to both introduce the topic to a wider audience and contribute to its development. Our review is both narrower and broader than the major existing review by Bennett.* Bennett’s approach is broader in that he concentrates upon the general pattern of convergence between the policies adopted by nations. In contrast, our focus is more narrowly upon the transfer of specific policies as a result of strategic decisions taken by actors inside and outside government. At the same time however, our approach is broader, particularly because we:
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose an analysis of democracy in terms of two opposing faces, one "pragmatic" and the other "redemptive", and argue that it is the inescapable tension between them that makes populism a perennial possibility.
Abstract: Populism, understood as an appeal to ‘the people’ against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values, should not be dismissed as a pathological form of politics of no interest to the political theorist, for its democratic pretensions raise important issues. Adapting Michael Oakeshott's distinction between ‘the politics of faith’ and ‘the politics of scepticism’, the paper offers an analysis of democracy in terms of two opposing faces, one ‘pragmatic’ and the other ‘redemptive’, and argues that it is the inescapable tension between them that makes populism a perennial possibility.