Instituciones Políticas
Enviado por omarsabina • 1 de Julio de 2015 • 2.236 Palabras (9 Páginas) • 108 Visitas
Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions
Edited by
R. A. W. RHODES
SARAH BINDER
AND
BERT ROCKMAN
1
INTRODUCTION
The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions will be part of the Oxford Handbooks
of Political Science series. So it will fit the requirements of that series. We seek to
provide a definitive survey that also aspires to shape the discipline, not just to report
on it. It will combine trenchant commentaries on where the field has been with
positive suggestions about where it ought to be heading.
Aims and Scope of the Handbook
The study of political institutions is central to the identity of the discipline of political
science. Eckstein (1963. pp. 10-11) points out:
political science emerged ... as a separate autonomous field of study divorced
from philosophy. Political economy and even sociology [which] may have
created a tendency to emphasise the study of formal-legal arrangements....
If there is any subject matter at all which political scientists can claim
exclusively for their own, a subject matter that does not require acquisition of
the analytical tools of sister-fields and that sustains their claim to autonomous
existence, it is, of course, formal-legal political structure.
But, according to March and Olsen (1984. p. 734) political science forgot its roots and
traditional political institutions 'have receded in importance from the position they
held in the earlier theories of political scientists'. They criticise contemporary political
science because, for example: it is contextual, or socio-centric, emphasising the social
context of political behaviour and downgrading the state as
an independent cause (p.
735); reductionist, explaining politics as the outcome of individual actions (pp. 7356); and utilitarian, explaining individual actions as motivated by rational self-interest
(pp. 736-7). In contrast, the new institutionalism 'insists on a more autonomous role
for political institutions'. Thus:
The bureaucratic agency, the legislative committee, and the appellate court are
arenas for contending social forces, but they are also collections of standard
operating procedures and structures that define and defend interests. They are
political actors in their own right'. (p. 738)
This volume covers both the traditional concerns of political science with
constitutions, federalism and bureaucracy and more recent interest in theory and the
constructed nature of institutions.
In Part I. the editors survey the field, covering both its history and an assessment of
where we are and where we are going.
Part II builds on various attempts to characterise the diversity of institutional
approaches by Peter Hall (1996). Vivien Lowndes (1996) and Guy Peters (1999). It
will survey of the several theoretical approaches. including normative
institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism,
international institutionalism, constructed institutionalism, and network
institutionalism. Each chapter will be about 5.000 words. We provide a unique survey.
2
Parts III to XI cover the main political institutions. We focus on the conventional
categories to give breadth of coverage and ensure the volume is useful to the widest
possible readership. So there are few if any surprises in
such topics as constitutions,
federalism, executives, legislatures, courts, and parties. However, we also reflect the
broadening concerns of the field in recent years with parts on international institutions
and the institutions of state and civil society. Neither of these topics figures in
previous surveys the field (Bogdanor 1987; Greenstein and Polsby 1975).
Finally, and following the series format. Part XII provides six reflections on ‘the state
of the art’ by the grand old men and women in the field.
In sum, we seek comprehensive coverage of the field, with a balance across
continents (especially Europe and North America), across established names and
younger scholars, and by gender. We are also trying to be imaginative in the way we
cover the field. Although we cover the conventional institutional categories, we also
provide, for example, a unique coverage of institutional theory and encompass the
ever-broadening scope of the field.
In the next section, we outline the main topics covered by this volume with lists of
possible authors for each chapter. We have not approached any authors and will not
do so until we have a contract. Nothing should be inferred from the order of names by
each topic. We will add people not on the list already if, for example, someone we
approach turns us down but suggests a good alternate. Some names appear under
multiple headings, but no one except the editors, who will co-author the introductory
essay and a substantive chapter each, will write more than one. Specific chapter titles
may change depending on the author’s treatment of the subject. Several of the topics
are ones to
which we believe only two or three scholars can do full justice. If we do
not get one of these top scholars then we will drop the topic in question. All the
chapters we intend to commission would be about 5-8.000 words, though some of the
broader topics may need to be expanded beyond that word limit. The editors’
introduction would be around 10.000 words.
Competitors
There is no competitor to this Handbook. Both Bogdanor (1987) and Greenstein and
Polsby (1975) are out of date.
Specification:
Maximum length: 300- 400.000 words (600-800 pages) including front and end
matter. Proposed submission of final draft: December 2004.
References
Bogdanor. V. (ed.) (1987). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions
(Oxford: Blackwell).
Eckstein. H. (1963) 'A Perspective on Comparative Politics. Past and Present'. in H.
Eckstein and D. E. Apter (eds.) Comparative Politics: A Reader (London: The Free
Press of Glencoe). Pp. 3-32.
Greenstein. F. I. and Polsby. N. (eds.) (1975). Handbook of Political Science. Volume
5. Political Institutions. (Reading. MA.: Addison-Wesley).
3
Hall. P. and Taylor. R. (1996). ‘Political Science and the
...