Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
192.168.6.56/handle/123456789/52585Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Nikolaos Karagiannis and John Marangos | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-11T07:05:08Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-03-11T07:05:08Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | - |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-1-137-31362-1 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://10.6.20.12:80/handle/123456789/52585 | - |
| dc.description | In history, a distinction between eras or periods implies a major and fundamental change in the system of institutions governing a society. The twentieth century has seen numerous writings on the role of institutions, and the links connecting state and society. The term “institution” is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public services. As mechanisms of social interaction, institutions are manifest in both formal organizations and in informal social order and organizations—reflecting human psychology, culture, habits, and customs, and encompassing subjective experience of meaningful enactments. Certainly, in every society, there is some form of government organization that may, or may not, represent the members of the society collectively but indeed plays an important role in the national economy. And, evidently, some institutions work better than others. States not only differ in their institutional design but also in their effectiveness, in their ability to actually govern. Sociopolitical elements, such as political parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client relations, which connect citizens to the state, are important because they convey demands to the government. The way in which they are structured—clientelistic or programmatic parties, pluralist or corporatist interest groups—affects which demands get through and which are discouraged, advantaging some groups at the expense of others. The state and society are connected to each other through political participation. Some countries have “strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions” in which there is high probability that policies will be implemented as the government intended. Other countries suffer from a crisis of governability. The more power is dispersed within the state, the more there are opportunities for special interests to apply pressure upon it. Some states are able to handle the strong influence of political parties and other linkage organizations, while others are overwhelmed by it. The former are called “strong states,” which display capacity—ability to pursue national goals and implement demands effectively—and autonomy from social interests, often acting as interest groups. The latter, called “weak states,” are captured by narrow interests, are characterized by corruption, and lack the capacity to govern as they cannot translate their authority into policy formulation and execution. Likewise, strong and weak political parties play significant roles in democracies, competing to win elections and form governments, and can be built on patronage and clientelism or public programs. Citizens engage in different forms of political participation depending on the resources they have and the opportunities to deploy them. | - |
| dc.language | en | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Palgrave Macmillan | en_US |
| dc.subject | Social policy | en_US |
| dc.title | Toward a Good Society in the Twenty-First Century | en_US |
| dc.type | Book | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Population Studies | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.