Author: Piotr Burgoński
Institution: Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
Year of publication: 2020
Source: Show
Pages: 72-85
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2020.68.06
PDF: apsp/68/apsp6806.pdf

The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that ideas can be treated as a factor explaining political stability and change. Based on the completed analytical tasks, it has been found that ideas have their own dynamics and therefore they deliver unique effects, influencing change or stability of policies. The article demonstrates that the impact ideas have on the political process depends on the understanding of human behaviour in the field of politics. The article reviews the ideational dimension with reference to behaviours covered by the rational choice theory, by historical, sociological and discoursive institutionalism and constructivism. As a result of the analytic tasks, certain differences have been revealed between the above mentioned approaches in terms of understanding the impact of ideas. What the approaches have in common is a close link between ideas and political actors. The article covers theoretical issues without considering methodology aspects. It is based on the outcomes of study projects carried out by authors recognized in the so-called school of ideas, formed in political science following the “ideational shift” during the 1990s and reflecting until the present day on the ideational dimension of politics.

IDEE JAKO CZYNNIK WYJAŚNIAJĄCY W ANALIZIE POLITYCZNEJ

Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że idee mogą być traktowane jako czynnik wyjaśniający polityczną stabilność i zmianę. Przeprowadzone analizy pokazały, że idee odznaczają się własną dynamiką, w wyniku której powodują specyficzny efekt wpływający na zmianę polityki lub jej stabilność. Artykuł pokazuje, że wpływ idei na proces polityczny jest uwarunkowany sposobem rozumienia zachowań człowieka w sferze polityki. W artykule poddano analizie wymiar ideacyjny w odniesieniu do zachowań, o jakich jest mowa w teorii racjonalnego wyboru, historycznym, socjologicznym i dyskursywnym instytucjonalizmie oraz konstruktywizmie. W rezultacie analiz ujawniono różnice pomiędzy tymi podejściami w zakresie rozumienia wpływu idei. Tym, co je łączy, jest ścisły związek idei z aktorami politycznymi. Artykuł dotyczy kwestii teoretycznych, nie uwzględnia problematyki metodologicznej. Opiera się na rezultatach badań przeprowadzonych przez autorów zaliczanych do tzw. szkoły idei, która powstała w naukach politycznych po „ideacyjnym zwrocie” w latach 90. ubiegłego wieku i również dzisiaj podejmuje refleksję nad wymiarem ideacyjnym polityki.

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

  • Beland, D. (2016). Ideas and Institutions in Social Policy Research. Social Policy & Administration, 50(6), 734– DOI: 10.1111/spol.12258.
  • Beland, D., & Cox, R.H. (2011). Introduction. In: D. Beland, & R.H. Cox (eds.). Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 3–20). Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Beland, D., & Cox, R.H. (2016). Ideas as Coalition Magnets: Coalition Building, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Power Relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428– DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1115533.
  • Berman, S. (1998). The Social Democratic Moment: Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Berman, S. (2013). Ideational Theorizing in the Social Sciences since “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State”. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(2), 217– DOI: 10.1111/gove.12008.
  • Blyth, M. (2001). The Transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic Ideas, Distributional Conflict, and Institutional Change. World Politics, 54(1), 1– DOI: 10.1353/wp.2001.0020
  • Blyth, M. (2002). Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blyth, M. (2006). Instytucje i idee. In: D. Marsh, & G. Stoker (eds.). Teorie i metody w naukach politycznych (pp. 295–314). Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloń
  • Campbell, J.L. (2002). Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21– DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141111.
  • Cianciara, A.K. (2017). Europejska polityka sąsiedztwa w perspektywie konstruktywizmu. Aktorzy, narracje, strategie. Warszawa: Instytut Studiow Politycznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
  • Garret, G., & Weingast, B.R. (1993). Ideas, Interests and Institutions: Constructing the European Communities Internal Market. In: J. Goldstein, & R. Keohane (eds.). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (pp. 173–207). Ithaka, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Gofas, A., & Hay, C. (2010). Varieties of Ideational Explanation. In: A. Gofas, & C. Hay (eds.). The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis: A Portrait of Contemporary Debates (pp. 13–55). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  • Goldstein, J. (1993). Ideas, Interests and American Trade Policy. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Hall, P. (1992). The Movement from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional Analysis and British Economic Policy in the 1970s. In: S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (eds.). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (pp. 90–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hay, C. (2006). Constructivist Institutionalism. In: R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder, & B.A. Rockman (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 56–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • McNamara, K.R. (1998). The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Mehta, J. (2011). The Varied Roles of Ideas in Politics: From “Whether” to “How”. In: D. Beland, & R.H. Cox (eds.). Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 23–46). Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Parsons, C. (2010). Constructivism and Interpretive Theory. In: D. Marsh, & G. Stoker (eds.). Theory and Methods in Political Science (3rd ) (pp. 80–98). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Parsons, C. (2016). Ideas and Power: Four Intersections and How to Show Them. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 446– DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1115538.
  • Saurugger, S. (2013). Constructivism and Public Policy Approaches in the EU: From Ideas to Power Games. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 888– DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.781826.
  • Saurugger, S. (2017). Sociological Institutionalism and European Integration. In: W.R. Thompson et al. (eds.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-179?rskey=b5Aflv&result=1. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.17.
  • Schmidt, V.A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303– DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.
  • Schmidt, V.A. (2010). Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth “New Institutionalism”. European Political Science Review, 1(2), 1– DOI: 10.1017/S175577390999021X.
  • Tonder, L. (2010). Ideational Analysis, Political Change and Immanent Causality. In: A. Gofas, & C. Hay (eds.). The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis. A Portrait of Contemporary Debates (pp. 55–77). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  • Wiener, A. (2006). Constructivism and Sociological Institutionalism. In: M. Cini, & A.K. Bourne (eds.). Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies (pp. 35–55). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart