Lecture 9: Organizing democratic governance
Recap
Phase 3: reaction to behavioral revolution/second scientific revolution (after 1967)
1. Bringing the state back in: institutions as rules, procedures and social norms that
shape how individuals formulate preferences
2. Mid-range rather than universal theories: don’t think that theories apply across time
and space, try to explain things that are broad enough that they are relevant that
more than 1 case, but context matters!
3. Shift from sociology to economics focus on rational actors that can rank
preferences and act accordingly
neither clocks nor clouds: is social world predictable (following rules/regulations), or is it
more specific, unpredictable
people are capable of strategic action: understand social world and act
accordingly
Phase 3/4: second scientific revolution after 1989
1. Epistemological shift: construction and testing of causal theoretical models
2. Emphasis on research design that makes it possible to test theoretical propositions
3. How are theories built?
a. Focus on micro-foundations
b. (Causal) theories can be falsified
c. Individuals not purely instrumental or rational: ideas & identities matter
How do people conceive of their interests in politics? What determines what people want?
Philosophical question
- Different disciplines tackle this in a different way and CP draws insights from several
related disciplines
o e.g. sociology and anthropology (context essential), economics (material
interests central, people think rational), psychology (voting behavior)
- Historical institutionalists: emphasize ideas and shared conception of interests
o Moore: different groups have different preferences for the (type of) state:
Prussian vs English elite
Prussian elite: strong, repressive state because of need for cheap labor
English elite: state that arranged labor through market, guarantee of
property rights
No simple more or less, but type of state
Preferences can be “sticky” because of socialization: tend to stay in
place, even after the initial condition that led to preferences is no
longer there
- Rational choice institutionalists: conflicts about redistribution – material interests
o Bueno de Mesquita et al: political survival and material interests – ability to
determine access to public and private goods
, o Suryanarayan & White: people do not only are about access to goods
(redistribution), but under certain circumstances they may also care about
“status”
Key points
1. Theoretical approaches (generally) provide a guide to simplifying assumptions about
interests and how they are constructed and conceived
a. What do you want? What is important to you?
i. In-depth interview, participant observation, surveys, observe behavior
consistent with assumed interests (rational choice), etc.
b. Which simplifying assumptions are you comfortable with?
c. Which benefits does simplification offer?
i. Broad assumptions: applicable to a lot of cases
ii. Take context into account: applicable to less cases
2. Many theoretical approaches in contemporary CP are open to the idea that people
care about more than only material interests (e.g. Wang; Suryanarayan and White)
a. People have preferences about the type of society they would like to live in,
and this can inform their political behavior
i. What is the situation for other people, what do we do to the planet,
etc.
b. How can we know which interests and identities become politically relevant?
i. We care about a lot of things, but not all things influence our political
behavior
c. And how does this influence the nature of politics?
Organizing democratic governance
Accountability
“Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations
define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the
decision-making process” - Schattschneider 1960
Elections engage larger segments of the population than other forms of participation or
collective action.
Who decides about the alternatives of public policy?
- Ideologies and party programs: this is what we should be doing
- Makes it possible for people to make a choice between different alternatives
Accountability is defined as the mechanisms by which leaders and parties are held
‘accountable’ - i.e. can be sanctioned daily or at fixed intervals for their actions” (Bardi et al)
“throw the rascals out” get rid of political leaders when they do not live up to what they
promised
, In a democracy, elections are the key mechanisms to hold leaders accountable
- Link to The Logic of Political Survival: the only reason why the leader gives out goods
to the Winning Coalition is because he wants to be re-elected
Why do we care about parties?
We cannot imagine democracy without also having an important role for political parties
“Political parties created democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of
political parties” - Schattschneider, 1942
This implies that the future and health of democracies rely on the strength of political
parties
What is a political party: “A party is any political group that presents at elections, and is
capable of placing through elections, candidates for public office.” - Sartori (1976/2005: 57)
- Broad minimal definition
- Under this definition, a party doesn’t have to have any members
o Can be membership organization, family, etc.
- Assumes that this only works when everybody can win and compete: rules out
authoritarian countries, that often ban certain parties from competing
o To include: a political group that would present at elections
How do parties compete?
- Propose policy when they are in power
- Sell themselves to potential voters
- Mobilize society: draw in societal groups for support
- Inform people about what is at stake
- Recruitment: find possible leaders among citizens (candidate lists)
Functions of parties
1. Aggregation: take different interests that exist in society and put them together
2. Articulation: formulate program that has vision on these interests
3. Representation: give voters a voice in parliament/municipal council etc.
4. Political recruitment: find possible political leaders among citizens
Parties are intermediaries between citizens and the state: citizens cannot present all of their
demands/ideas directly to the state because this will cause an overload, therefore parties
are needed to channel these needs without overloading the state
link to Huntington’s emphasis on institutions
How do citizens feel about parties?
- High levels of distrust overall among European citizens
o Correlates with party membership, which is also declining (Mair)
- Nordic countries are best performers: people have a lot of trust in the state. But even
for them, more than one third of the people have really low trust in political parties.
Latin-America:
Recap
Phase 3: reaction to behavioral revolution/second scientific revolution (after 1967)
1. Bringing the state back in: institutions as rules, procedures and social norms that
shape how individuals formulate preferences
2. Mid-range rather than universal theories: don’t think that theories apply across time
and space, try to explain things that are broad enough that they are relevant that
more than 1 case, but context matters!
3. Shift from sociology to economics focus on rational actors that can rank
preferences and act accordingly
neither clocks nor clouds: is social world predictable (following rules/regulations), or is it
more specific, unpredictable
people are capable of strategic action: understand social world and act
accordingly
Phase 3/4: second scientific revolution after 1989
1. Epistemological shift: construction and testing of causal theoretical models
2. Emphasis on research design that makes it possible to test theoretical propositions
3. How are theories built?
a. Focus on micro-foundations
b. (Causal) theories can be falsified
c. Individuals not purely instrumental or rational: ideas & identities matter
How do people conceive of their interests in politics? What determines what people want?
Philosophical question
- Different disciplines tackle this in a different way and CP draws insights from several
related disciplines
o e.g. sociology and anthropology (context essential), economics (material
interests central, people think rational), psychology (voting behavior)
- Historical institutionalists: emphasize ideas and shared conception of interests
o Moore: different groups have different preferences for the (type of) state:
Prussian vs English elite
Prussian elite: strong, repressive state because of need for cheap labor
English elite: state that arranged labor through market, guarantee of
property rights
No simple more or less, but type of state
Preferences can be “sticky” because of socialization: tend to stay in
place, even after the initial condition that led to preferences is no
longer there
- Rational choice institutionalists: conflicts about redistribution – material interests
o Bueno de Mesquita et al: political survival and material interests – ability to
determine access to public and private goods
, o Suryanarayan & White: people do not only are about access to goods
(redistribution), but under certain circumstances they may also care about
“status”
Key points
1. Theoretical approaches (generally) provide a guide to simplifying assumptions about
interests and how they are constructed and conceived
a. What do you want? What is important to you?
i. In-depth interview, participant observation, surveys, observe behavior
consistent with assumed interests (rational choice), etc.
b. Which simplifying assumptions are you comfortable with?
c. Which benefits does simplification offer?
i. Broad assumptions: applicable to a lot of cases
ii. Take context into account: applicable to less cases
2. Many theoretical approaches in contemporary CP are open to the idea that people
care about more than only material interests (e.g. Wang; Suryanarayan and White)
a. People have preferences about the type of society they would like to live in,
and this can inform their political behavior
i. What is the situation for other people, what do we do to the planet,
etc.
b. How can we know which interests and identities become politically relevant?
i. We care about a lot of things, but not all things influence our political
behavior
c. And how does this influence the nature of politics?
Organizing democratic governance
Accountability
“Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations
define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the
decision-making process” - Schattschneider 1960
Elections engage larger segments of the population than other forms of participation or
collective action.
Who decides about the alternatives of public policy?
- Ideologies and party programs: this is what we should be doing
- Makes it possible for people to make a choice between different alternatives
Accountability is defined as the mechanisms by which leaders and parties are held
‘accountable’ - i.e. can be sanctioned daily or at fixed intervals for their actions” (Bardi et al)
“throw the rascals out” get rid of political leaders when they do not live up to what they
promised
, In a democracy, elections are the key mechanisms to hold leaders accountable
- Link to The Logic of Political Survival: the only reason why the leader gives out goods
to the Winning Coalition is because he wants to be re-elected
Why do we care about parties?
We cannot imagine democracy without also having an important role for political parties
“Political parties created democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of
political parties” - Schattschneider, 1942
This implies that the future and health of democracies rely on the strength of political
parties
What is a political party: “A party is any political group that presents at elections, and is
capable of placing through elections, candidates for public office.” - Sartori (1976/2005: 57)
- Broad minimal definition
- Under this definition, a party doesn’t have to have any members
o Can be membership organization, family, etc.
- Assumes that this only works when everybody can win and compete: rules out
authoritarian countries, that often ban certain parties from competing
o To include: a political group that would present at elections
How do parties compete?
- Propose policy when they are in power
- Sell themselves to potential voters
- Mobilize society: draw in societal groups for support
- Inform people about what is at stake
- Recruitment: find possible leaders among citizens (candidate lists)
Functions of parties
1. Aggregation: take different interests that exist in society and put them together
2. Articulation: formulate program that has vision on these interests
3. Representation: give voters a voice in parliament/municipal council etc.
4. Political recruitment: find possible political leaders among citizens
Parties are intermediaries between citizens and the state: citizens cannot present all of their
demands/ideas directly to the state because this will cause an overload, therefore parties
are needed to channel these needs without overloading the state
link to Huntington’s emphasis on institutions
How do citizens feel about parties?
- High levels of distrust overall among European citizens
o Correlates with party membership, which is also declining (Mair)
- Nordic countries are best performers: people have a lot of trust in the state. But even
for them, more than one third of the people have really low trust in political parties.
Latin-America:
