Keywords:
Institutionalization, deinstitutionalization, system of rules, normativity, legitimationAbstract
Institutions are a manifestation of power. According to H. Arendt, a second aspect has to be considered; institutions could decay and even petrify when the living power, the people´s power, doesn’t uphold them. The recent crisis in the national and the international political sphere, could derive from insufficient backing of power in institutional systems. However, their erosion would depend on several factors, not only of the “living power”, as H. Arendt stated. Deinstitutionalization processes are complex phenomena and, consequently, they require several levels of analysis: (1) institutions perform integration functions, articulating reciprocal expectations of agents, (2) as systems of rules, institutions define rights and duties (3) the role of “constitutive rules”. In general, the normativity or deontic power of public systems of rules has to be taken into account.Downloads
References
ARENDT, H., On Violence, Orlando, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1969
BACHRACH, L., Deinstitutionalization: An Analytical Review and Sociological Perspective, Rockville, National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW), 1976
BERGER, P., LUCKMANN, TH., The Social Construction of Reality, London, Penguin, 1991
CALHOUN, C., «Occupy Wall Street in Perspective», British Journal of Sociology, 64, 2013, pp. 26-38
DACIN,T., GOODSTEIN, J., SCOTT, R., «Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Social Research Forum», The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 2002, pp. 45-56
DÉCIEUX, F., NACHTWEY, O., « Occupy: Protest in der Postdemokratie », Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 27, 2014, pp. 75-88
DELLA PORTA, D., Social Movements in Times of Austerity, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2015
GREENWOOD, R., OLIVER, CH., SUDDABY, R., SAHLIN, K., Organizational Institutionalism, London, Sage, 2008
HABERMAS, J., Im Sog der Tecnokratie, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 2013
HABERMAS, J., Ach, Europa, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 2008
HAJER, M., «Policy without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void», Policy Sciences, 36, 2003, pp. 175-195
HANISH, C., «The Personal is Political», Notes form the Second Year. Women´s Liberation Movement, 1970, pp. 76-78
HESSEL, S., Indignez-vous!, Montpellier, Indigène Éditions, 2010
Huntington, S., Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1968
Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, 2001
Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género.
Ley Orgánica 3/2007, de 22 de marzo, para la igualdad efectiva de mujeres y hombres
MARCH, J., OLSEN, J., Rediscovering Institutions, New York, The Free Press, 1989
OLIVER, CH., «Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes», The Academy of Management Review, 4, 16, 1991, pp. 145-179
PARSONS, T., On Institutions and Social Evolution, Chicago. The University of Chicago Press, 1982
PETERS, G., Institutional Theory in Political Science, London, Pinter, 1999
RADAELLI, C., Featherstone, K., “Introduction”. En: Featherstone, K., Radaelli, C.: The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 27-56
RAWLS, J., A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013
SCOTT, J., «Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis», American Historical Review, 54, 1986, pp. 1053-1075
SCOTT, R., Institutions and Organizations, London, Sage, 1995
SCOTT, R., «The Adolescence of Institutional Theory», Administrative Science Quarterly, 1987, pp. 493-511
SEARLE, J., «What Is An Institution?», Journal of Institutional Economics, 1, 2005, pp. 1-22
SEARLE, J., «How to Derive “Ought” From “Is”», The Philosophical Review, 73, 1964, pp. 43-58