Keywords
institutions
government effectiveness
democracy
How to Cite
Abstract
This article presents the results of a comparative analysis of political institutions in different types of regimes through indicators of their political subjectness, namely governance effectiveness, government’s future orientation and institutional trust. The correlation between these indicators and the level of democratisation for 50 countries in Europe and Central Asia as of 2021 and in the dynamics of the last 15 years is calculated on the basis of a broad empirical database. The influence of new world order trends, such as the development of a network society, the digitalisation of the political field and the influence of international financial institutions, on institutional political subjectness is explored. The author concludes that consolidated democracies and autocracies have a higher level of political subjectness than hybrid regimes. Democracies are more effective in governance, but autocracies are more perceived by their citizens as capable of providing political stability and a long-term vision for the future. As a result, autocratic regimes have a higher dynamic of institutional trust. Hybrid regimes demonstrate a greater propensity for authoritarian political institutions and traditions than for democratic ones.
References
Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Crown, New York, 529 p. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae29-2j DOI: https://doi.org/10.1355/ae29-2j
Ancell C., Sorensen E., Torfing J. (2021), The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems, “Public Management Review”, vol. 23, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272, 20.12.2201. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272
Applebaum A. (2020), When the World Stumbled: COVID-19 and the Failure of the International System, in: COVID-19 and World Order: The Future of Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation, Johns Hopkins University Press, https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2696566, 20.12.2021.
Capoccia G., Kelemen R. D. (2007), The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism, “World Politics”, no. 3 (59), рp. 341–369. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
Crozier M., Huntington S. P., Watanuki J. (1975), The Crisis of Democracy, New York University Press, New York.
Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds (2012), The National Intelligence Council, Great Britain, 160 p., https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf, 20.12.2021.
Goodin R. E. (1986), Laundering preferences, in: J. Elster, A. Hylland, Foundations of social choice theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 75–102.
Farrell H., Han H. (2020), Public Governance and Global Politics after COVID-19, in: COVID-19 and World Order: The Future of Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation, Johns Hopkins University Press, https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2696567, 20.12.2021.
Foa R. S., Mounk Y. (2017), The signs of deconsolidation, “Journal of Democracy”, 28, pp. 5–16. DOI https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000
Freedom on the Net 2021. The Global Drive to Control Big Tech (2021), Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/FOTN_2021_Complete_Booklet_09162021_FINAL_UPDATED.pdf, 20.12.2021.
Fukuyama F., Richman B., Goel A. (2021), How to Save Democracy From Technology. Ending Big Tech’s Information Monopoly, Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-11-24/fukuyama-how-save-democracy-technology, 21.12.2021.
Hay C. (2006), Constructivist Institutionalism, in: The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, eds. R. A. W. Rhodes et. al., Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 56–74. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0004
Huntington S. (1968), Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University.
Ikenberry G. J. (2018), The End of Liberal International Order?, “International Affairs”, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 7–23, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241, 20.12.2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241
Ikenberry G. J. (2020), The Next Liberal Order, Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-06-09/next-liberal-order, 20.12.2021.
Jakі vimogi visuvav MVF do Ukraїni za ostannі 26 rokіv (2020), Slovo і dіlo, https://www.slovoidilo.ua/2020/04/23/infografika/finansy/yaki-vymohy-vysuvav-mvf-ukrayiny-ostanni-26-rokiv, 20.12.2021 [in Ukrainian].
Krasnjakova A. O. (2014), Polіtichna sub’єktnіst’: umovi stanovlennja ta oznaki rozvitku, “Problemi polіtichnoї psihologії”, vol. 1, pp. 45–55, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/pppr_2014_1_7, 20.12.2021 [in Ukrainian].
Larsson O. (2015), Exploring the Full Potential of Ideas in Neo-institutionalism, “Conference: forthcoming in Critical Review”, vol. 27, no. 2, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275209341_Exploring_the_Full_Potential_of_Ideas_in_Neo-institutionalism, 20.12.2021
Lebedeva M. M., Harkevich M. V., Zinov’eva E. S., Koposova E. N. (2016), Arhaizacija gosudarstva: rol’ sovremennyh informacionnyh tehnologij, “Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija”, no. 6, pp. 22–36, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.06.03, 20.12.2021 [in Russian]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.06.03
Low J. (2004), After Method Mess in social science research, Routledge, L-N.Y., 188 p.
Marshall G. M., Elzinga-Marshall G. (2017), Global report 2017. Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility, Center for Systemic Peace, Vienna, http://www.systemicpeace.org/vlibrary/GlobalReport2017.pdf, 20.12.2021.
Mel’vil’ A. Ju., Stukal D. K., Mironjuk M. G. (2013), “Car’ gory”, ili pochemu v postkommunisticheskih avtokratijah plohie instituty, “Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija”, no. 2, pp. 125–143, https://www.politstudies.ru/article/4693, 20.12.2021 [in Russian].
Miroshnichenko I. V. (2012), Formirovanie sub#ektnosti setevyh soobshhestv v rossijskoj publichnoj politike, “Chelovek. Soobshhestvo. Upravlenie”, no. 1, pp. 76–86 [in Russian].
Nations in Transit 2021: The Antidemocratic Turn (2021), Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2021/antidemocratic-turn, 20.12.2021.
Newman J. (2018), Morphogenetic theory and the constructivist institutionalist challenge, “Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour”, vol. 49, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12193
Pantin V. I., Lapkin V. V. (2018), Transformacii politicheskih prostranstv v uslovijah perehoda k policentrichnomu miroporjadku, “Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija”, no. 6, pp. 47–66, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.06.04, 20.12.2021 [in Russian]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.06.04
Polarisation and the use of technology in political campaigns and communication (2019), European Parliamentary Research Service, Scientific Foresight Unit, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/634414/EPRS_STU(2019)634414_EN.pdf, 20.12.2021.
Problema sborki sub#ektov v postneklassicheskoj nauke (2010), Ros. akad. nauk, In- t filosofii, IFRAN, M., 271 p., http://www.reflexion.ru/Library/Lepsky2010-sborka.pdf, 20.12.2021 [in Russian].
Reinert E. S. (2008), How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor, Anthem Press India and Third World Network, 398 p.
Scarrow S. E. (2017), The changing nature of political party membership, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, https://ww.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.226, 20.12.2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.226
Schmidt V. A. (2008), Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse, “Annual Review of Political Science”, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
Skocpol T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815805 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815805
Stojko O. (2016), Transformacіja polіtichnih іnstitutіv u suchasnih perehіdnih suspіl’stvah: monografіja, Іn-t derzhavi і prava іm. V.M. Korec’kogo, Logos, Kiїv, 416 p.
Tackling Inequality: A New Social Contract for a New Era (2020), United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/tackling-inequality-new-social-contract-new-era, 20.12.2021.
Tang S. (2011), A general theory of institutional change, Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834725 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834725
The Global Competitiveness Report 2019 (2020), World Economic Forum, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf, 20.12.2021.
The Legatum Prosperity Index 2021 (2021), The Legatum Institute Foundation, https://www.prosperity.com/download_file/view_inline/4429, 20.12.2021.
The World Bank Open Data. Indicators (2021), World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator, 20.12.2021.
World Development Report 2017. Governance and the Law (2017), The World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017, 20.12.2021.
Worldwide Governance Indicators (2021), World Bank, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/, 20.12.2021.
White J. (2021), The de-institutionalisation of power beyond the state, “European Journal of International Relations”, https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211053683, 20.12.2021.
White J. (2021), The de-institutionalisation of power beyond the state, “European Journal of International Relations”, https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211053683, 20.12.2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211053683
Zlobіna O. G. (2004), Osobistіst’ jak sub’єkt socіal’nih zmіn, Іnstitut socіologії NAN Ukraїni, Kyiv, 400 p. [in Ukrainian].
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nataliia Natalina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.