Reaction papers for course “The institutional structure of democratic regimes”
Seminar 1 The Polity and its defining features. The Modern State.
Seminar 2 Beyond the State model. Challenges to the State model. Weak and failed states.
Seminar 3 The analysis of political regimes. Democratic regimes.
Seminar 4 Typologies of non democratic regimes. Grey areas between democracy and non democracy.
Seminar 5 Democratic Executives and forms of government.
Seminar 6 Executives in parliamentary governments and in presidential governments. Institutional and functional varieties.
Seminar 7 Parliamentary institutions: institutional varieties.
Seminar 8 Parliamentary institutions: members, parties and legislative production.
Seminar 9 Parties and party systems: typologies.
Seminar 10 Parties and party systems: trends of transformation.
Table of Contents
Seminar 1 The Polity and its defining features. The Modern State
Seminar 2 Beyond the State model. Challenges to the State model. Weak and failed states.
Seminar 3 The analysis of political regimes. Democratic regimes
Seminar 4 Typologies of non democratic regimes. Grey areas between democracy and non democracy.
Seminar 5 Democratic Executives and forms of government
Seminar 6 Executives in parliamentary governments and in presidential governments. Institutional and functional varieties.
Seminar 7 Parliamentary institutions: institutional varieties
Seminar 8 Parliamentary institutions: members, parties and legislative production
Seminar 9 Parties and party systems: typologies
Seminar 10 Parties and party systems: trends of transformation
Objectives and Themes
The core objective of this work is to analyze and critically evaluate foundational and contemporary political science literature concerning the institutional structure of democratic regimes, state capacity, and party systems. The text aims to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical applications in modern governance.
- The evolution and current relevance of the concept of the "modern state" and state capacity.
- Challenges to traditional state models, including the dynamics of weak and failing states.
- Comparative analysis of parliamentary and presidential systems, focusing on accountability and delegation.
- The transformation of political parties and the emergence of new organizational models like the "cartel party".
- The nuances of democratization, hybrid regimes, and the institutional aspects of parliamentary representation.
Excerpt from the Book
Seminar 6 Executives in parliamentary governments and in presidential governments. Institutional and functional varieties.
Which system is superior? The groundbreaking question raised by Kaare Strøm (p. 282) is the core issue of the reaction paper for this seminar. To answer this question, we need to take into consideration institutional and functional varieties, moreover, the two concepts – delegation and accountability. My proposed thesis is following: the advantages of presidential democracy emphasizes that the weaknesses of parliamentary democracy should not be underestimated. I will prove it with two arguments. First, in the last years some studies have been devoted to the executive’s and president’s role in agency creation. Most of the studies have focused on the influence of the president versus Congress or other elite-level actors. As Moe and Wilson argue presidents can ostensibly politicize the bureaucracy toward their policy goals against a relatively structurally weak legislative branch (1994). Therefore, the president has a tremendous amount of say over which agencies are created and how these agencies are designed.
Second, Strøm (2000) while using principal-agent theory and offering a novel conception of parliamentary democracy as delegation and accountability (characterized by singularity principle), author concludes that presidential regimes are more reliant on ex post controls for preventing agency loss, while parliamentary regimes more reliant on ex ante controls. Cotta&Blondel refer to Finland where ex post controls are present (p.134), therefore also semi-presidential regime could be discussed in Strøm's paper (his paper fails to discuss this issue). To his mind, parliamentary systems are better at selection, so they avoid adverse selection, but they risk moral hazard, ineffective accountability and poor transparency. Therefore, parliamentarism’s challenge is decaying screening devices and diverted accountabilities. Presidential systems risk greater adverse selection, but have better sanctioning mechanisms to prevent moral hazard - therefore greater transparency and accountability. But isn't this argument contrary to Linz who has argued that parliamentarism is much more flexible in dealing with executive-legislative conflict than presidentialism? In the end, I definitely agree with Strøm that challenges to parliamentary democracy deserve to be taken seriously (p. 286).
Summary of Chapters
Seminar 1 The Polity and its defining features. The Modern State: This chapter analyzes the work of Skocpol, Mitchell, and Gill regarding the development and autonomy of the modern state, critiquing their varying levels of depth and novelty.
Seminar 2 Beyond the State model. Challenges to the State model. Weak and failed states.: The chapter evaluates Schmitter’s concepts of political organization within the EU and critiques Patrick’s framework regarding the ambiguity of defining and addressing "weak and failing states."
Seminar 3 The analysis of political regimes. Democratic regimes: This section reviews critiques of Lijphart’s majoritarian versus consensus models and Tilly’s analysis of democracy, highlighting the limitations of current comparative frameworks.
Seminar 4 Typologies of non democratic regimes. Grey areas between democracy and non democracy.: The author examines the concept of "hybrid regimes," arguing for their existence as a distinct category and emphasizing the necessity of understanding these regimes to evaluate fragile democracies.
Seminar 5 Democratic Executives and forms of government: This chapter discusses the trade-offs between presidential and parliamentary systems, suggesting that the strengths of presidentialism are often overlooked in current literature.
Seminar 6 Executives in parliamentary governments and in presidential governments. Institutional and functional varieties.: The text explores delegation and accountability in different executive systems, concluding that both parliamentary and presidential models face unique institutional challenges.
Seminar 7 Parliamentary institutions: institutional varieties: The chapter evaluates tools like the Parliamentary Power Index (PPI) and discusses the functions of second chambers and committee structures in ensuring government accountability.
Seminar 8 Parliamentary institutions: members, parties and legislative production: This section analyzes historical shifts in legislative recruitment and debates the distinction between party cohesion and party discipline.
Seminar 9 Parties and party systems: typologies: The author critiques Sartori’s typology and discusses the importance of ideological polarization versus quantitative party counts, highlighting the complexity of voter self-placement.
Seminar 10 Parties and party systems: trends of transformation: The final chapter addresses the emergence of the "cartel party" model and critiques the existing literature for failing to adequately explain qualitative changes in party systems.
Keywords
Democracy, Modern State, Hybrid Regimes, Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, State Capacity, Party Systems, Cartel Party, Accountability, Delegation, Political Institutionalism, Democratization, Polarization, Legislative Recruitment, Party Cohesion.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental purpose of this collection of reaction papers?
The papers serve as critical academic responses to foundational political science literature, evaluating the institutional structures of democratic and non-democratic regimes.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The work covers state building, the classification of political regimes, executive-legislative relations, and the evolution of political parties and their systems.
What is the central research inquiry presented by the author?
The author consistently questions the adequacy of existing theoretical frameworks to explain contemporary political phenomena, such as hybrid regimes and the challenges of modern governance.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The methodology consists of critical literature review and comparative analysis, focusing on identifying gaps and weaknesses in existing scholarly arguments.
What is the focus of the main body of the text?
The main body systematically analyzes key seminal texts in comparative politics, ranging from the definitions of the modern state to the intricacies of parliamentary committee structures.
Which keywords best characterize the discourse of these papers?
Key terms include democracy, state capacity, party systems, institutionalism, and hybrid regimes, reflecting the comparative politics focus of the course.
How does the author view the distinction between majoritarian and consensus models?
The author finds this distinction problematic and often blurred, noting that empirical evidence from various countries does not always cleanly fit into these two categories.
What critique does the author offer regarding the study of "weak and failing states"?
The author criticizes the lack of consensus on definitions and measurements, arguing that the field remains trapped in a catch-all framework without actionable solutions for state-building.
What is the significance of the "cartel party" concept in the author's analysis?
The author uses it to illustrate how party organizations have shifted, arguing that more research is needed to understand the qualitative changes in these structures beyond simple electoral participation.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Karina Oborune (Autor:in), 2010, Reaction papers for course “The institutional structure of democratic regimes”, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/155094
