Palavras-chave
Discurso
Instituições
Aprendizagem social
Coligações
Como Citar
Resumo
O objetivo do artigo é mostrar o papel crucial que as ideias desempenham na mudança institucional, na formação de políticas públicas, e no agrupamento e orientação dos atores. Todos estes cenários envolvem processos de criação de ideias e discursos, de disputas sobre a solução de problemas e a legitimação ou não de decisões. O papel das ideias depende da nossa concepção da sua relação com as instituições, interesses e atores. E dos determinantes que apreciamos nas mudanças. O pressuposto promovido pela escolha racional de que são um meio instrumental de interesses limita a compreensão da complexidade dos processos políticos. Para justificar o seu papel, o artigo analisa várias escolas e autores em termos da tensão conceitual entre interesse e instituições; a relação entre ideias, mudança política e coligações; e o papel do discurso em relação a elas.
Referências
ABDELAL, R.; BLYTH, M.; PARSONS, C. (Eds.). Constructing the international economy. Cornell: University Press, 2015.
ALIGICA, P. D.; BOETTKE, J. P. “The two social philosophies of Ostroms’ Institutionalism”. The Policy Studies Journal, vol. 39, n° 1, p. 29-49, Aug. 2011.
ANDERSON, C. The logic of public problems: evaluation on comparative policy research. In: ASHFORD, D. (ed.). Comparing public policies. Sage, 1978. BARNETT, M. Social constructivism. In: BAYLIS, J.; SMITH, S.; OWENS, P. (Eds.). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
BÉLAND, D.; COX, R. H. “Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations”. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 23, n° 3, p. 428-45, Dec. 2016.
BIRKLAND, T. An introduction to the policy process. New York: Routledge, 2016. BLYTH, M. Great transformations: economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
BIRKLAND, T. “Structures do not come with an instructions sheet: interest, ideas, and progress in political science”. Perspectives on Politics, vol. 2, n° 4, p. 695-706, Dec. 2003.
BIRKLAND, T. “Paradigms and paradox: the politics of economic ideas in two moments of crisis”. Governance: an International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 2, n° 2, p. 197- 215, abr. 2013.
BÖRZEL, T. A.; HEARD-LAURÉOTE, K. “Networks in EU multi-level governance: concepts and contributions”. Journal of Public Policy, vol. 29, n° 2, p. 135-51, Jul. 2009.
BOSWELL, C. “The political functions of expert knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy”. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 15, n° 4, p. 471-88, May 2008.
BOVENS, M.; HART, P.; KUIPERS, S. The politics of policy evaluation. In: MORAN, M.; REIN, M.; GOODIN, R. E. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
BRUNSSON, N. The organization of hypocrisy: talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Chichester and New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
CAIRNEY, P. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. In: LODGE, M.; PAGE, E. C.; BALLA, S. J. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. Oxford: Oxford University, 2018.
CAMPBELL, J. L. “Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy”. Theory and Society, vol. 27, n° 3, p. 377-409, Jun. 1998.
CAMPBELL, J. L.; PEDERSEN, O. K. (Eds.). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
CARSTENSEN, M.; SCHMIDT, V. “Power through, over, and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism”. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 3, n° 2, p. 318-337, Dec. 2015.
CONNOLLY W. E. The terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983. DOWDING, K. “The compatibility of behaviouralism, rational choice, and ‘new institutionalism’”. Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 6, n° 1, p. 105-17, May 1994.
DUNLOP, C.; JAMES, O. “Principal-agent modelling and learning: the European commission, experts, and agricultural hormone growth promoters”. Public Policy and Administration, vol. 22, nº 4, p. 403- 422, Oct. 2007.
FISCHER, F. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. FISCHER, F.; GOTTWEIS, H. (Eds.). The argumentative turn revisited. London: Duke University Press, 2012.
FREEMAN, R. Learning in public policy. In: MORAN, M.; REIN, M.; GOODIN, R. E. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
GILARDI, F. “Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes?” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, n° 3, p. 650-66, Jul. 2010.
GILARDI, F; RADAELLI, C. Governance and learning. In: LEVI-FAUR, D. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
GOFAS, A.; HAY, C. The ideas debate in political analysis: towards a cartography and critical assessment. In: GOFAS, A.; HAY, C. (Eds.). The role of ideas in political analysis: a portrait of contemporary debates. London: Routledge, 2010.
GOLDSTEIN, J. Ideas, interests, and American trade policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
GOLDSTEIN, J.; KEOHANE, R. (Eds.). Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
HAJER, M. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain. In: FISCHER, F; FORESTER, J. (Eds.). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.
HAJER, M.; VERSTEEG, W. “A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives”. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 7, n° 3, p. 175-84, Jan. 2005.
HALL, P. A. Governing the economy: the politics of state intervention in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
HALL, P. A. “Policy paradigms, social learning, and state”. Comparative Policy, vol. 25, n° 3, p. 275- 96, Apr. 1993. HALL, P.; TAYLOR, R. “Political science and the three institutionalisms”. Political Studies, vol. 44, n° 5, p. 936-57, Dec. 1996.
HARDIN, R. La acción colectiva y el dilema del prisionero. In: COLOMER, J. (Ed.). Lecturas de teoría política positiva. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, 2006.
HAY, C. Constructivist institutionalism. In: RHODES, R. A. W.; BINDER, S. A.; ROCKMAN, B. A. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
HECLO, H. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. HENRY, A. “Power, ideology, and policy network cohesion in regional planning”. Policy Studies Journal, vol. 39, n° 3, p. 361-83, Aug. 2011.
HÉRITIER, A.; RHODES, M. (Eds.). New modes of governance in Europe: governing in the shadow of hierarchy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
HOWARTH, D. Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000. JENKINS-SMITH, H. D., et al. The advocacy coalition framework: an overview of the research program. In: WEIBLE, C.; SABATIER, P. A. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. Avalon Publishing, 2018.
JOHN, P. Analyzing public policy. London: Pinter, 1998. KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. Choices, values, and frames. In: MACLEAN, L. C.; ZIEMBA, W. T. (Eds.). Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: part I. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, p. 269-78, 2013.
KING, A. “Ideas, institutions, and the politics of governments: a comparative analysis, I and II”. British Journal of Political Science, vol. 3, nº 3, p. 291-313, Jul. 1973.
KRISTENSEN, P. H.; ZEITLIN, J. Local players in global games: the strategic constitution of multinational corporation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
MACDONELL, D. Theories of discourse: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. MANSBRIDGE, J. Beyond adversarial democracy. New York: Basic Books, 1980.
MARCH, J.; OLSEN, J. “The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life”. American Political Science Review, vol. 78, p. 732-49, Sep. 1984.
MARCH, J.; OLSEN, J. Elaborating the ‘new institutionalism’. In: RHODES, R. A. W.; BINDER, S. A.; ROCKMAN, B. A. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
MAY, P. J. “Policy learning and failure”. Journal of Public Policy, vol. 12, n° 4, p. 331-54, Dec. 1992.
MAZMANIAN, D.; SABATIER, P. Implementation and public policy. Glenview: MD: Scott Foresman, 1983.
NORTH, D. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
OLIVER, M. J.; PEMBERTON, H. “Learning and change in 20th-century British Economic Policy”. Governance, vol. 17, n° 3, p. 415-41, Jul. 2004.
OSTROM, E. “Background on the institutional analysis and development framework”. The Policy Studies Journal, vol. 39, nº 1, p. 7-21, Feb. 2011.
RADAELLI, C. M. “Europeanization, policy learning, and new modes of governance”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, vol. 10, n° 3, p. 239-54, Sept. 2008.
RADAELLI, C. M. “Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe”. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16, nº 8, p. 1.145-64, Nov. 2009.
RISSE-KAPPEN, T. “Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war”. International Organization, vol. 48, n° 2, p. 185-214, May 1994.
ROTHSTEIN, B. Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
RYDGREN. Beliefs. In: PETER, H.; BEARMAN, P. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
SABATIER, P. “Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: an advocacy coalition framework”. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 8, n° 4, p. 649-92, Nov. 1987.
SABATIER, P. “The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe”. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 5, n° 1, p. 98-130, Feb. 1998.
SABATIER, P.; BRASHER, A. M. From vague consensus to clearly differentiated coalitions: environmental policy at lake Tahoe, 1964-1985. In: SABATIER, P.; JENKINS-SMITH, H. (eds.). Policy change and learning. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.
SABATIER, P.; JENKINS-SMITH, H. The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: SABATIER, P.; JENKINS-SMITH, H. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.
SCHERFTER, L. “The use of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies”. Governance, vol. 23, n° 2, p. 309-30, Mar. 2010.
SCHMIDT, V. “Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse”. The Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, p. 303-26, Jun. 2008.
SCHMIDT, V. “Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’”. European Political Science Review, vol. 2, n° 1, p. 1-25, Feb. 2010.
SCHMIDT, V. “Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation”. Critical Policy Studies, vol. 5, n° 2, p. 106-26, Jun. 2011.
SCHMIDT, V. Discursive institutionalism: scope, dynamics, and philosophical underpinnings. In: FISCHER, F.; GOTTWEIS, H. (Eds.). The argumentative turn revisited: public policy as communicative practice. Duke University Press, 2012.
SCOTT, R. Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications, 2013.
SHAPIRO, M. Language and political understanding: the politics of discursive practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981.
SIKKINK, K. Ideas and institutions: developmentalism in Argentina and Brazil. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.
SMITH, A. “Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: explaining policy change and stability in UK Industrial Pollution Policy”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 18, n° 1, p. 95-114, Feb. 2000.
STONE, D. A. Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988.
WEIBLE, C. Introduction: the scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In: WEIBLE, C.; SABATIER, P. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. Avalon Publishing, 2018.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Opinião Pública
Downloads
