APPROACHES & MODELS

of INSTITUTIONALISM
Densing, Angelica Czarina M.
March 2019
Three (3) Analytical Approaches:

• Historical Institutionalism
• Rational Choice Institutionalism
• Sociological Institutionalism
 Historical Institutionalism
A
P  Developed during the 1960s & 1970s
P
R  Historical institutionalists associate
O institutions with organizations and the
A
C rules or conventions promulgated by
H formal organization
E
S
 Historical Institutionalism
A
P
P •Institutional organization as the principal
R factor structuring collective behavior
O
A ("structuralism")
C •State as a complex of institutions structuring
H
E the character and outcomes of group conflicts
S
 Rational Choice Institutionalism
A
P
P
• Institutions are arrangements of rules and
R incentives to which members behave in
O response
A
C • Individuals do not have their preferences
H modified by membership in the institution
E
S
 Rational Choice Institutionalism
•Politics: a series of collective action dilemmas
A
P (prisoner's dilemma; tragedy of the commons)
P •Role of strategic calculation (institutions
R
O structure such interactions)
A •Origin of institutions: to realize or maximize
C
H actors' value, survival of the fittest
E •Institutional change: exogenous shocks push
S
equilibrium to a new equilibrium
 Sociological Institutionalism
A •Arose from "organizational theory" in
P late 1970s
P
R •Culturally-specific practices, akin to the
O myths and ceremonies devised by many
A
C societies
H • Broader definition of "institutions":
E
S symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and
moral templates that provide the "frame
of meaning" guiding human action
(Culture is institutions)
 Sociological Institutionalism
A
P •Mutually constitutive character between
P institutions and individual action
R
O • Problematic: why organizations take on
A specific sets of institutional forms,
C
H
procedures or symbols
E •Enhances the social legitimacy of the
S
organization and its participants
Institutionalist Model of Politics
• Based on a relationship of institutions
with principles of rule (consequences are
depending on the participation of the
members in the society)
• Principle:
degree of participation = more
decentralized the units of governing +
degree of democracy
 100
c

b
M Degree of
O Participation
D a
E
L 0
100
Decentralization of Units

Point A = monistic govt. (few units of govt. only)

Point C = pluralistic (power shared broadly in
the community)
 Institutionalist Questions:
1) When does power become so
participant & broadly distributed?
2) How to organize participation and
distribute power among units to make a
stalemate society into a equilibrium
society?
3) What is the optimal point?
4) What is the model at the optimal point?
 The Model of Democratic Politics

Public Satisfaction
M
O Regulation of
conflict and Promotion of
D ends and interests
E competition Government
L
Solidarity Justice
Order Liberty
Control Legitimacy Equality
 Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach
R
E to Philippine Politics │Gene Lacza Pilapil
L Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (50) 2006
A
T
E
o Presents some arguments for the usefulness
D of developing on institutional approach to the
study of Philippine politics.
S
T o The main focus of this paper is on political
U institutions (specifically democratic ones).
D
I
E
S
 Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach
R
E
to Philippine Politics │Gene Lacza Pilapil
L Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (50) 2006
A
T Central Research Question:
E
D How does the design of institutions promote or hinder
the effects of class domination/fragmentation,
S or elite predation/strength,
T or civil society exclusion/empowerment
U on the Philippine state's policies?
D
I
E
S
 Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach
R
E
to Philippine Politics │Gene Lacza Pilapil
L Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (50) 2006
A
T • The paper focused on political institutions and
E
D argued that political institutions are important
because they act as incentives and constraints
S for state and social actors .
T
U • In the Philippine’s case, this paper criticized
D
I
society-based approaches of the semi-colonial,
E semi-feudal class approach.
S
 Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach
R
E
to Philippine Politics │Gene Lacza Pilapil
L Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (50) 2006
A
T • The Philippine state is an instrument of the domestic
E ruling classes and is a puppet of its neo-colonial
D master, the US.
S • State policies are determined by elite power over the
T state or extent of elite or oligarchic predation.
U
D
I
E
S
 Some Arguments for an Institutional Approach
R
E
to Philippine Politics │Gene Lacza Pilapil
L Philippine Political Science Journal 27 (50) 2006
A
T
E • State policies are by-products of any combination of
D a collage of classes, elites, interest groups, social
movements (a.k.a., civil society), external forces
S (a.k.a., globalization actors), masses, etc.
T
U • No more than a preliminary exploratory work on a
D possible institutional approach to Philippine politics
I (analysis).
E
S
R
E
Croissant, 2003
L
A
T • A comparative work (Philippines as a country case)
E
D • Croissant compares the Philippine and South Korean
president's capacity to manifest the characteristic of
S delegative democracy
T
U • Sees the weak proactive powers of the executive in
D the PH as "secur[ing] a well-functioning separation of
I powers and effective horizontal accountability of the
E president in the Philippines“.
S
APPROACHES & MODELS
of INSTITUTIONALISM
Densing, Angelica Czarina M.
March 2019