Good Society and the State

• The Good Society based on set of defensible universal values (SPIR)• Depends on institutional

arrangements; the most powerful institution is the State• States can promote conditions

that develop people’s capabilities or impede them

Institutions & Power

• Institutions create, embody written and unwritten rules that constrain individuals’ behavior into patterned actions• Order and predictability; meaning and

structure to relationships• Institutions exert power• Power = ability to get people to do things they

would not have chosen to do on their own or to prevail in getting what you want in the presence of opposing claims and competing interests

• Authority = a form of power that has been accepted as right and proper by those who submit to it

Institutions & Power

• Economic, Cultural/Social, Political (ESP)• Economic or material power emanates from

those who control critical scarce resources and are able to obtain compliance from whose who do not

• Cultural/Social power exists when some people are able to convince others to adopt their values, ideas, and premises as their own

• Political power is grounded in coercion and control over the means of violence

• The power institutions exert is based on control over material resources, content of social beliefs, and control of means of violence

The State

• Institution that embodies political power = State• Set of organizations imbued with sovereignty over a given area

through control of means of violence (one government, one land, one law, one gun)

• State as an organization = power belongs to office, not person• Sovereignty/absolute power = ultimate power over

population• Territoriality = power extends over specific area with clear

boundaries• Coercion and violence = State has monopoly over means of

violence within its territory• Groups struggle for control of state and its powers• Groups successful in gaining control form government• Government = group of leaders in charge of directing

the state (State is the car; government is the driver)• May be challenged by other institutions (e.g., foreign

governments, institutions or groups within borders)

Origins of the State

• Modernization Theory• States result of increasing division of labor; need to

solve coordination problems with society’s increasing complexity

• States are benign and stabilizing; peaceful and rational• Marxist Theory• Dominant class uses state and monopoly over means

of violence to impose its rule over subordinate classes• State represents repressive apparatus the dominant

class wields against other classes to cement its rule• States as instruments of dominant class

• War Theory• States developed in response to extractive necessities

of war

Political Institutions

• Groups struggle for control of state and over nature of state

• Groups seek to empower those parts of state where they have most advantage

• Way power is distributed within state is presented in constitution• Constitutions = blueprints that define

state’s architecture; “power maps” (may or may not be accurate representations of power distributions)

Federal and Unitary

• Unitary Systems• Power concentrated at national level• Local levels have little autonomous power;

Sovereignty resides at the top• More common than federal systems (e.g., China,

France, Japan)• Federal Systems• Sovereignty divided/shared between national &

subnational levels• Self-rule locally combined with shared rule at

national level; Local levels have significant autonomous power

• Found predominantly among large countries (U.S., Russia, Mexico, India, Nigeria)

• Some smaller countries with intense ethnic, religious, and linguistic cleavages

The Legislature

• Political power also distributed horizontally• Legislatures have different names in different

countries• U.S. Congress, British Parliament, French National Assembly

• Legislatures = assemblies that approve policies on behalf of larger political community they represent

• In authoritarian countries, participation without power• China – National People’s Congress only passes those bills

proposed by government; not a single bill from an individual deputy has ever been enacted

• In democracies, more than rubber stamps; they influence policy

Unicameral/Bicameral

• Most legislatures unicameral = one chamber• Bicameral structure (two chambers) found in

U.S. (House and Senate) is atypical• Each chamber based on different principle of representation

(e.g., in U.S., House based on population, Senate equal representation)

• Larger countries tend toward bicameralism; also more common in countries with federal systems (Australia, Germany)

• Advantage of unicameral legislature = no second chamber to delay, veto, or amend bills first chamber already passed

• Advantage of bicameralism = can offer broader basis of representation than one chamber alone

Committee systems

• A strong committee system = good indicator of legislature’s power to influence policy• Clear jurisdiction and adequate resources permit

members to specialize• U.S. committee system exceptionally strong;

indicative of powerful legislative branch• Most legislatures today are reactive, not

proactive: they reject and modify bills, but do not often propose their own• Respond to executive rather than setting their own

priorities

The Legislature

• Why decreasing influence?• Increasing significance of foreign policy• Growth in scope of government and bureaucracy• Rising power of media to portray politics in terms of

personality• Emergence of organized political parties that can

deliver disciplined majorities for government• Legislatures tend to be powerful• Strong committee system (expertise for legislators)• Parties are weak (no disciplined legislative majorities)• Some issue areas more than others (e.g., more on

social welfare policy; less so on foreign policy and economic policy)

The Executive

• The executive branch = supposed to elaborate, coordinate, and implement legislature’s decisions

• Energy center of government; agenda setter• Core executive = ruling government, center of

executive branch (all significant policy-making and coordinating actors, such as president or prime minister, cabinet members, advisors, and senior civil servants)• Political leaders: head of state (represents country) and

head of government (directs executive branch)• One and the same or separate (U.S. and Britain,

respectively)• Ministers come next – Cabinet

The Bureaucracy

• Bureaucracy = directly below core executive and includes different departments and agencies• Extension of government in power and its

political leadership; executes policy in impartial and professional way

• Often executive has hard time imposing its will on bureaucrats

• Executives try to strengthen personal staffs and increase number of political appointees

The Military

• Specialized department within bureaucracy; embodies essence of state and controls armed forces (can impose will on other parts of state)

• Civilians control military budget, command structure, and promotion and assignment of commanders, but there is some deference to military self rule• Military may also inject itself into certain policy debates

• Civilian control of military more likely in countries where both state and military institutions are strong• Most of developed world; in developing countries, states

are weak, unable to maintain order; military has more influence

• Civil-military relations can shift from the military having veto power over government to military taking over government

The Judiciary

• Theoretically above politics and outside of policy-making process (interpret laws; not make them)

• Authoritarian systems = powers of judiciary limited (lacks independence, subordinate to executive)

• Democracies = judiciary more autonomous (judicial review = empowers court to nullify and invalidate laws/actions that violate constitution)

• Independence depends on how members are selected, tenure, removal process

• “Judicialization of politics” = political disputes settled in courtrooms rather than legislatures (e.g., Bush v. Gore (2000); Presidential election Ukraine (2004) which altered outcome)

• Policy makers increasingly legislate in shadow of courts

Comparative Political Analysis: Does the Design of Political Institutions Make a Difference in People’s Lives?

Problem• Do people live better under

one set of institutions than another?

• Lijphart’s dichotomy:• Majoritarian democracies

(unitary system; unicameral legislature; weak courts; strong core executives) versus Consensus democracies (federal systems, bicameral legislatures, courts w/ judicial review and weak core executives).

• So what? Do people live better under majoritarian- versus consensus-oriented institutions?

Methods & Hypotheses• Lijphart ranked selected

democracies according to the degree that their institutions conformed to these two models and then statistically compared their economic, political, and social performance.

• He hypothesized that consensus democracies would produce better results because their policies have a broader base of support and not as prone to abrupt policy shifts.

Comparative Political Analysis: Does the Design of Political Institutions Make a Difference in People’s Lives?

Operationalizing Concepts1. Some of his proxies to test the

relative economic performance of majoritarian and consensus democracies included: average annual growth in GDP, average annual rates of inflation and unemployment levels.

2. His measures of political performance were turnout rates in elections, number of women holding nat’l political office, and survey data on citizen satisfaction with democracy in their country.

3. Measure of social performance: welfare state expenditures; foreign aid contributions, pollution levels, and prison incarceration rates.

Results• He found that consensus

democracies performed better socially, and politically, but there was no difference on economic performance.

• Consensus democracies did not have more economic growth or lower unemployment than majoritarian democracies, although they (consensus democracies) did a better job keeping inflation in check.

• Discussion: were the indicators appropriate? Other tests needed? Why do you think consensus democracies did better on the political and social indicators?

Critical Thinking Questions

1. The authors argued at the beginning of the chapter that power takes three forms: economic, political and ideological. Are these three forms of power equal? What claims for preeminence can be made about each of them?2. Do states promote individual’s capabilities or restrict them?3. If your country was just emerging and was writing a constitution, how would you organize your political institutions? What judicial, legislative, federal, and executive arrangements would you create and why?4. Over time, the legislative branch has lost ground to the executive in almost all countries. Why has this happened and is this state of affairs constructive or harmful?5. Since the military has all the guns, why don’t they take over governments more frequently? Why does the military accept civilian control in some countries while it is reluctant to consent to it in others?