by the institutional framework of corporatism (e.g., in Germany, Austria or Belgium). In contrast, the second one prevails in societies/economies with a strong concentration of decision-making power, associated often with a majority electoral system (e.g., United Kingdom, USA). Political decision-making is often done “behind closed doors” and the communication of changes and political goals in order to gain political support is oriented towards the general public. Discursive institutionalism criticizes other institutionalist theories for their static perception of institutional framework (historical institutionalism), or of the environment in which the actors interact and which promotes their interests (rational institutionalism).52 In discursive institutionalism, institutions are not perceived as external variables. So not only do the institutions form the structure of the environment in which actors interact, but, at the same time, the institutions themselves are an element which actors have created and potentially also change. This means that actors have the ability to think critically about the institutions and to change the way we think about these institutions themselves or their surroundings – and in that case it is even right to change them, whether individually or collectively. This ability explains why unexpected institutional changes are sometimes effected. Institutions determine and limit actors, but institutions themselves are subjects on which actors operate. One can either substitute them with other institutional forms, or use them in a different way than originally intended. Although discursive institutionalism has brought about new possibilities to explain institutional changes, it is still necessary to remember the risks that are associated with its application. Schmidt (2008) states that traditions and culture will always influence the presentation of ideas and guide the debate. Thus, for empirical research it is always a challenge to identify when, where and why ideas and discourses bring about institutional change and when they do not. STUDY TIP: Refer to Chapter B2 for a case study which applies the Theory of discursive institutionalism.
APPLICATION OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS – HARMONY, DISHARMONY, IMPROVISATION? Let me once again use the – somewhat schematic – metaphor of policy instruments as parts of the “social organism” (see table above in this chapter). Just as no human body can function if its organs fail to cooperate with one another, so no policy action can achieve the desired goals unless it relies on a harmonic, coordinated application of different policy instruments. 52 Compare the theory of historical institutionalism in Chapter A2 or rational choice theory in Chapter A9.
– 98 –
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS240065