Yeni Kurumsal Siyaset

Yıl 2015, , 559 - 583, 01.12.2015

Buğra Kalkan

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.256757

Cited By: 1

Öz

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

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni kurumsal siyaset, kurumsal değişim, rasyonel tercih, kültürel yaklaşım, izlek bağımlılık

New Institutional Politics

Öz

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

Anahtar Kelimeler

New institutional politics, institutional change, rational choice, cultural approach, path dependance

Kaynakça

• Acemoğlu, D., & Robinson, J. (2013). Why Nations Fail, The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, New York: Crown Bussiness.
• Aoki, Masahiko (2013). 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Dahl, R. (2000). On Democracy. New York: Yale University Press.
• Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell,W. W. (1991), Introduction, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dolfsma, W. (2011). Government Failure: Four Types. Journal of Economic Issues, 45 (3), s. 593-604. Dunleavy, P. (1991).Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Duverger, M. (1974).Siyasi Partiler.Cev. Ergun Ozbudun. Ankara: Bilgi Yayinevi.
• Erdoğan, M. (2011). Anayasa Hukuku. Ankara: Orion Yayınları.
• Fligstein, N. (1996). Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions. American Sociological Review,61 (4), s. 656-673.
• Geanakoplos, J. (2004). Three Brief Proofs of Arrow’s Imposibility Theorem, Economic Theory, 26, s. 211-215.
• Green, D., ve Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New York: Yale University Press.
• Grief, Avner (1998). “Historical and Comperative Analysis”, New Institutional Economics, 88 (2), s. 80-84.
• Hannan, M.T. veFreeman J. (1977). ThePopulation Echology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), s. 929-964.
• 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 Order (s. 57-76). New York: University of Chicago Press.
• Heywood, A. (2013a). Siyaset Teorisine Giriş. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
• Heywood, A. (2013b). Siyasetin Temel Kavramları. Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
• Lovett, F. (2006). “Rational Choice Theory and Explanation”. Rationality and Society, 18 (2), s. 237-272.
• Lowndes, V. (2002). Institutionalism. D. Marsh (Ed.) içinde, Theory and Methods in Political Science (s. 90-108). London: Palgrave. Lowndes V. ve Roberts, M. (2013).Whey Institutions Matter, The Institutionalism in Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillian.
• Lustick, Ian S. (2011). Taking Evolution Seriously: Historical Institutionalism and Evolutionary Theory, Polity, 43 (2), s. 179-209.
• March, J. G., ve Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.
• March, J. G. ve Olsen, J. P. (1984). The New Institutionalism: Organisational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review ,78 (3),s. 738- 749.
• Meyer, J.W. ve Rowen B. (1977). Insititutional Organizations: Formal Structures as Mythand ceremony, American Journal of Sociology,83, s. 340-63.
• Montesquieu, C. D. (2011). Kanunların Ruhu Üzerine. İstanbul: HiperLink.
• North, D. C. ve Weingast, R. (1989). Constitutions and Commitment:The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England. The Journal of Economic History, 49 (4), 803-832.
• North, D., Wallis, J. J. ve Weingast, B. R. (2012a). Violance and Social Orders: Interpreting Recorded Human History. London: Cambridge University Press.
• North, D., Wallis, J., Webb, S., & Weingast, B. (2012b). In the Shadow of Violance: Politics, Economics and the Problems of Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperty: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books.
• Olson, M. (2002). The Logic of Collective Action. Ney York: Havard University Press.
• Ostrom, E. (1989). An Agenda For the Study of Institutions. Public Choice,48, s. 3-25.
• Ostrom, E. (1991). “Rational Choice Theory and Institutional Analysis: Toward Complementarity”. The American Political Science Review, 85 (1), s. 237- 243.
• Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional Theory in Political Science. New York: Pinter.
• Peters, G., Pierre J. ve King, D.S. (2005).The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict inHistorical Institutionalism. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), s. 1275- 1300.
• Pierson, Paul (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.American Political Science Review, 94(2), s. 251-267.
• Rhodes, Rod (2006). Old Institutionalism.Rhodes, Rockman, Binder (Ed.), içinde,Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (s. 90-10), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Riker, L. (1996). Rational Choice and the Problem of Institutions. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
• R. Coase, N. Wang (2005)Çin Nasıl Kapitalist Oldu?,İlkay Yılmaz, Buğra Kalkan (Çev.), Ankara: BigBang Yayınları.
• Sanders, D. (2002). Behavouralism. D. Marsh (Ed.) içinde, Theory and Methods in Political Science (s. 45-63). London: Palgrave.
• Selznick P. (1996). Institutions “Old” and “New”. Administrative Science Quarterly,41, s. 270-277.
• Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve, The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United Statesandd Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tocqueville A. (2003 [1840]). Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Classics.
• Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comperative Politics. London: University of California Press.
• Wallis, J. J. ve North, C. D. (2010). Defining State. Mercantus Center, Working Paper (s. 1-40). Washington D. C. : George Mason University.
• Willimson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach, American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3), s. 548-577.