Legislative institutionalisation: a bent analytical arrow?

David Judge, D. Earnshaw

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Institutionalization as a 'process theory' moves beyond the specification of a dichotomous variable - either an institution exists or it does not - to a continuous variable - whereby an institution can be more or less institutionalized. But if institutionalization is to be conceived in this way, then the specification of independent variables and the measurement of the degree of institutionalization become crucial to the understanding of the process. The essence of the argument presented in this article is that in the study of legislatures both the specification and measurement of institutionalization have been deficient. The comparative potential of the concept of legislative institutionalization has been limited by a failure to use common criteria and measures of institutionalization. As a general theory, institutionalization is of value in explaining how institutions become organized and how they become differentiated from other political organizations, but equally other organization theories might more usefully be deployed to explain institutional change in legislatures thereafter.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)497-516
Number of pages19
JournalGovernment and Opposition
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Fingerprint

institutionalization
organization theory
institutional change

Keywords

  • institutionalization
  • government
  • political organisations

Cite this

@article{0ccd09ead0c843ae8813abebfdff34f8,
title = "Legislative institutionalisation: a bent analytical arrow?",
abstract = "Institutionalization as a 'process theory' moves beyond the specification of a dichotomous variable - either an institution exists or it does not - to a continuous variable - whereby an institution can be more or less institutionalized. But if institutionalization is to be conceived in this way, then the specification of independent variables and the measurement of the degree of institutionalization become crucial to the understanding of the process. The essence of the argument presented in this article is that in the study of legislatures both the specification and measurement of institutionalization have been deficient. The comparative potential of the concept of legislative institutionalization has been limited by a failure to use common criteria and measures of institutionalization. As a general theory, institutionalization is of value in explaining how institutions become organized and how they become differentiated from other political organizations, but equally other organization theories might more usefully be deployed to explain institutional change in legislatures thereafter.",
keywords = "institutionalization, government, political organisations",
author = "David Judge and D. Earnshaw",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1111/1477-7053.00026",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "497--516",
journal = "Government and Opposition",
issn = "0017-257X",
number = "4",

}

Legislative institutionalisation: a bent analytical arrow? / Judge, David; Earnshaw, D.

In: Government and Opposition, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2003, p. 497-516.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legislative institutionalisation: a bent analytical arrow?

AU - Judge, David

AU - Earnshaw, D.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Institutionalization as a 'process theory' moves beyond the specification of a dichotomous variable - either an institution exists or it does not - to a continuous variable - whereby an institution can be more or less institutionalized. But if institutionalization is to be conceived in this way, then the specification of independent variables and the measurement of the degree of institutionalization become crucial to the understanding of the process. The essence of the argument presented in this article is that in the study of legislatures both the specification and measurement of institutionalization have been deficient. The comparative potential of the concept of legislative institutionalization has been limited by a failure to use common criteria and measures of institutionalization. As a general theory, institutionalization is of value in explaining how institutions become organized and how they become differentiated from other political organizations, but equally other organization theories might more usefully be deployed to explain institutional change in legislatures thereafter.

AB - Institutionalization as a 'process theory' moves beyond the specification of a dichotomous variable - either an institution exists or it does not - to a continuous variable - whereby an institution can be more or less institutionalized. But if institutionalization is to be conceived in this way, then the specification of independent variables and the measurement of the degree of institutionalization become crucial to the understanding of the process. The essence of the argument presented in this article is that in the study of legislatures both the specification and measurement of institutionalization have been deficient. The comparative potential of the concept of legislative institutionalization has been limited by a failure to use common criteria and measures of institutionalization. As a general theory, institutionalization is of value in explaining how institutions become organized and how they become differentiated from other political organizations, but equally other organization theories might more usefully be deployed to explain institutional change in legislatures thereafter.

KW - institutionalization

KW - government

KW - political organisations

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00026

U2 - 10.1111/1477-7053.00026

DO - 10.1111/1477-7053.00026

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 497

EP - 516

JO - Government and Opposition

JF - Government and Opposition

SN - 0017-257X

IS - 4

ER -