Welcome to Francis Academic Press

International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 2022, 4(8); doi: 10.25236/IJFS.2022.040819.

Post-War Development Analysis of Political Science: from Behaviorism to New Institutionalism: Political Science Development Trend, Challenges and Suggestions

Author(s)

Chenxi Gao1, Yini Li2

Corresponding Author:
Chenxi Gao
Affiliation(s)

1Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, China

2College of Tourism and Service Management, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, China

Abstract

The research on political system and the scientific development of discipline are of great significance to political science. Behaviorism after World War II is a research paradigm based on the rebellion against traditional political science and the adaptation to the needs of practical development, and then the new institutionalism is a political research paradigm emerging as the inheritance of traditional institutional research and the criticism of behaviorism. Both of them have great academic contributions but also have certain drawbacks. Through the analysis of the development of behaviorism and new institutionalism in political science after World War II, this paper attempts to summarize the development trend of political science since World War II, and analyzes the challenges faced by political science. Finally, it attempts to put forward corresponding disciplinary suggestions for the further scientific and vigorous development of political science.

Keywords

political science; behaviorism; new institutionalism

Cite This Paper

Chenxi Gao, Yini Li. Post-War Development Analysis of Political Science: from Behaviorism to New Institutionalism: Political Science Development Trend, Challenges and Suggestions. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2022), Vol. 4, Issue 8: 120-132. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2022.040819.

References

[1] Dahl, R. A. (1961). The behavioral approach in political science: epitaph for a monument to a successful protest. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 763-772.

[2] March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American political science review, 78(3), 734-749.

[3] Braat, M., Engelen, J., van Gemert, T., & Verhaegh, S. (2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of Psychology, 23(3), 252.

[4] Goodin, R. E., & Klingemann, H. D. (Eds.). (1998). A new handbook of political science. Oxford University Press on Demand.

[5] Gunnell, J. G. (2013). The Reconstitution of Political Theory: David Easton, Behavioralism, and the Long Road to System. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49(2), 190-210.

[6] Easton, D. (2017). A systems analysis of political life. In Systems Research for Behavioral Sciencesystems Research (pp. 428-436). Routledge.

[7] Hauptmann, E. (2012). The Ford Foundation and the rise of behavioralism in political science. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 48(2), 154-173.

[8] Heath, A. (2016). Understanding political change: The British voter 1964-1987. Elsevier.

[9] King, A., & King, A. S. (Eds.). (1985). The British prime minister. Duke University Press.

[10] Lowndes, V., Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (Eds.). (2017). Theory and methods in political science. Macmillan International Higher Education.

[11] Hood, C. (1990). JG March and JP Olsen Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York, Free Press, 1989. Journal of Public Policy, 10(3), 349-351.

[12] Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2018). Beyond the iconography of order: notes for a “new institutionalism”. In The dynamics of American politics (pp. 311-330). Routledge.

[13] Abrutyn, S., & Turner, J. H. (2011). The old institutionalism meets the new institutionalism. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3), 283-306.

[14] Black, J. (1997). New institutionalism and naturalism in socio‐legal analysis: Institutionalist approaches to regulatory decision making. Law & Policy, 19(1), 51-93.Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[15] Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political studies, 44(5), 936-957.

[16] Hay, C., Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, S. A., & Rockman, B. A. (2006). The Oxford handbook of political institutions.

[17] North, D. C. (1993). Toward a theory of institutional change. Political economy: Institutions, competition, and representation, 31(4), 61-69.

[18] Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.

[19] Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985). Principals and agents: The structure of business (p. 37). J. W. Pratt (Ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

[20] Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.Fioretos, O., Falleti, T. G., & Sheingate, A. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism. Oxford University Press.

[21] Fioretos, O., Falleti, T. G., & Sheingate, A. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism. Oxford University Press.

[22] Kickert, W. J., & Van Der Meer, F. B. (2011). Small, slow, and gradual reform: What can historical institutionalism teach us?. International journal of public administration, 34(8), 475-485.

[23] Bill, J. A., & Hardgrave, R. L. (1973). Comparative politics: The quest for theory. Merrill Publishing Company

[24] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 147-160.

[25] Farrell, H. (2018). The shared challenges of institutional theories: Rational choice, historical institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. In Knowledge and institutions. Springer, Cham.

[26] Ansell, Christopher. "Institutionalism." The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021. 135-152.

[27] Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political science. Macmillan International Higher Education.

[28] Schmidt, V. (2005). From the old institutionalism to the new institutionalism. The state: Theories and issues, 98.

[29] Stark, A. (2018). New institutionalism, critical junctures and post-crisis policy reform. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 24-39.

[30] McNabb, D. E. (2015). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative methods. Routledge.

[31] Schram, S. F., Flyvbjerg, B., & Landman, T. (2013). Political political science: A phronetic approach. New Political Science, 35(3), 359-372.

[32] Easton, D. (1985). Political science in the United States: Past and present. International Political Science Review, 6(1), 133-152.

[33] Dowding, K. (2015). The philosophy and methods of political science. Macmillan International Higher Education.

[34] Simon, D. W., & Romance, J. (2022). The challenge of politics: an introduction to political science. CQ press.

[35] Brown, W. (2010). Political theory is not a luxury: a response to Timothy Kaufman-Osborn’s “political theory as a profession”. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 680-685.

[36] Gaman-Golutvina, O. V. (2016). Political science facing the challenges of modern politics. to the 60th anniversary of RPSA/SPSA. Polis. Political Studies, 1(1), 8-28.

[37] Ricci, D. M. (1984). The tragedy of political science: Politics, scholarship, and democracy.Yale University Press.

[38] Harold D L. The future of political science [M]. Routledge, 2017.

[39] McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental methods in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 31-61.

[40] Hirschman, A. O. (1970). The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics, 22(3), 329-343.