Suchergebnisse

Pragmatism has experienced a renaissance in social theory in recent years. This is no wonder since the so-called classical pragmatists, especially John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, outlined a highly original theory of social life. This book builds on pragmatist ideas and argues that social structures are first and foremost based on habitualized action. Thus, the insights of Dewey and Mead have profound implications for the way in which we think about many of the fundamental issues in social theory. These insights are discussed, for example, in relation to contemporary debates on the nature o

"Pragmatism has experienced a renaissance in social theory in recent years. This is no wonder since the so-called classical pragmatists, especially John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, outlined a highly original theory of social life. This book builds on pragmatist ideas and argues that social structures are first and foremost based on habitualized action. Thus, the insights of Dewey and Mead have profound implications for the way in which we think about many of the fundamental issues in social theory. These insights are discussed, for example, in relation to contemporary debates on the nature of intersubjectivity, institutions, the public and Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus. The book shows that pragmatism offers a naturalist, action-centered way of conceptualizing culture and social structures."--Publisher's description

AbstractThe article discusses institutional theories in economics and sociology. The discussion adopts W. Richard Scott's classification into regulative, normative, and discursive theories. A fourth alternative, habitual institutionalism, is also presented because of the problems encountered with the other theories. Pragmatically inclined habitual institutionalism presents a consistent theory of action wherein conscious action is derived from habitual action, which is also the basis of institutionalization. In addition, habitual institutionalism portrays human rationality more extensively than economists and sociologists have traditionally done. For these reasons, the difficulties associated with other institutional theories can be avoided.

In recent years practice theory has challenged the leading position of social constructionism within action and social theory. This challenge has mainly come from realist thinkers in practice theory. One such thinker is Margaret Archer, who has argued that pre-social practices constitute selfhood independent of social factors. While welcoming critiques of constructionism, I maintain that realist practice theory gives an undersocialized picture of selfhood at the expense of intersubjectivity, which is a founding feature of proper agency and selfhood. The private realm of selfhood nevertheless exists, and it can be theorized as consisting of internal conversations. These conversations are a mediating factor between action and social structures. However, in the maintenance of structures the role of reflexive deliberation is subordinate to habitual dispositions because the former is usually present in situations of crisis, whereas habitual action is the normal state of affairs.

AbstractUnhealthy behaviours are more prevalent in lower than in higher socioeconomic groups. Sociological attempts to explain the socioeconomic patterning of health-related behaviour typically draw on practice theories, as well as on the concept of lifestyles. When accounting for "sticky" habits and social structures, studies often ignore individuals' capacity for reflection. The opposite is also true: research on individual-level factors has difficulty with the social determinants of behaviour. We argue that the pragmatist concept of habit is not only a precursor to practice theories but also offers a dynamic and action-oriented understanding of the mechanisms that "recruit" individuals to health-related practices. In pragmatism, habits are not merely repetitive behaviours, but creative solutions to problems confronted in everyday life and reflect individuals' relationships to the material and social world around them. Ideally, the pragmatist conception of habits lays the theoretical ground for efficient prevention of and effective support for behaviour change.

Corporatist Nordic welfare states are largely thought to have exemplary environmental policies. Finland, however, was labeled "a failing ecostate" by a recent study owing to its weak climate change policy. Why is Finland different? We use data from a survey of organizations belonging to the Finnish climate change policy network to investigate two alternative explanations related to policy networks. According to the Cooptation Thesis, inclusive corporatist polities, where environmental NGOs (ENGOs) have support from and access to the state, formulate less ambitious policies because environmentalists moderate their views to secure state funding and political access. Second, according to the Treadmill of Production Theory, the decisive feature of Nordic corporatism with regard to environmental policy is the tripartite system linking business interests, labor unions, and the state in a coalition that prioritizes economic over ecological values. The results indicate that the ENGO Coalition is the least influential, least resourceful, smallest, least linked to the others, and not particularly moderate. The Treadmill Coalition is the most influential, most resourceful, second largest, well linked to the state, and least ecological in its beliefs. Thus, of the two policy network explanations, the dominance of the Treadmill Coalition rather than cooptation of ENGOs gets support. ; Peer reviewed

Corporatist Nordic welfare states are largely thought to have exemplary environmental policies. Finland, however, was labeled "a failing ecostate" by a recent study owing to its weak climate change policy. Why is Finland different? We use data from a survey of organizations belonging to the Finnish climate change policy network to investigate two alternative explanations related to policy networks. According to the Cooptation Thesis, inclusive corporatist polities, where environmental NGOs (ENGOs) have support from and access to the state, formulate less ambitious policies because environmentalists moderate their views to secure state funding and political access. Second, according to the Treadmill of Production Theory, the decisive feature of Nordic corporatism with regard to environmental policy is the tripartite system linking business interests, labor unions, and the state in a coalition that prioritizes economic over ecological values. The results indicate that the ENGO Coalition is the least influential, least resourceful, smallest, least linked to the others, and not particularly moderate. The Treadmill Coalition is the most influential, most resourceful, second largest, well linked to the state, and least ecological in its beliefs. Thus, of the two policy network explanations, the dominance of the Treadmill Coalition rather than cooptation of ENGOs gets support.

AbstractPolicy scholars have increasingly focused on collaborative and competitive relationships between stakeholder coalitions. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in particular has directed scholarly attention toward such relationships. The ACF defines advocacy coalitions as groups of actors who share beliefs and coordinate their action. However, previous research has been inconsistent in defining and measuring coalitions, which has hampered comparative research and theory building. We present a method called the Advocacy Coalition Index, which measures belief similarity and the coordination of action in a manner that makes it possible to assess the extent to which advocacy coalitions are found in policy subsystems, whether subgroups resemble coalitions, and how individual actors contribute to coalition formation. The index provides a standardized method for identifying coalitions that can be applied to comparative research. To illustrate the effectiveness of the index, we analyze two climate change policy subsystems, namely Finland and Sweden, which have been shown to differ in terms of the association of belief similarity with coordination. We demonstrate that the index performs well in identifying the different types of subsystems, coalitions, and actors that contribute the most to coalition formation, as well as those involved in cross‐coalition brokerage.

The conditions under which policy beliefs and influential actors shape collaborative behaviour in governance networks are not well understood. This article applies exponential random graph models to network data from Finland and Sweden to investigate how beliefs, reputational power and the role of public authorities' structure collaboration ties into the two countries' climate change governance networks. Results show that only in Finland's conflictual climate policy domain do actors collaborate with those with similar beliefs and with reputational power, while only in Sweden's consensual climate policy domain do public authorities play central impartial coordinating roles. These results indicate that conflict is present in a governance network when beliefs and reputational power determine collaboration and that it is absent when public authorities occupy central roles. They also suggest that relative success in climate policy action is likely to occur when public authorities take on network manager roles. ; Peer reviewed

AbstractThe conditions under which policy beliefs and influential actors shape collaborative behaviour in governance networks are not well understood. This article applies exponential random graph models to network data from Finland and Sweden to investigate how beliefs, reputational power and the role of public authorities structure collaboration ties in the two countries' climate change governance networks. Results show that only in Finland's conflictual climate policy domain do actors collaborate with those with similar beliefs and with reputational power, while only in Sweden's consensual climate policy domain do public authorities play central impartial coordinating roles. These results indicate that conflict is present in a governance network when beliefs and reputational power determine collaboration and that it is absent when public authorities occupy central roles. They also suggest that relative success in climate policy action is likely to occur when public authorities take on network manager roles.

Advocacy strategies are a key success factor for public, private and third sector actors who participate in and seek to influence policy choices. Despite this, research on policy networks has paid little attention to the forms of advocacy studied by interest groups scholars. The interest groups' literature differentiates insider from outsider strategies and assumes that interest groups with strong access to policymakers opt for insider strategies, while those with weak access are constrained to the use of outsider strategies. This literature has not considered how the full set of actors that constitute a policy network use advocacy strategies. Furthermore, the insider/outsider dichotomy oversimplifies and neglects the possibility that actors' choices are interdependent. Using climate change policy network data from four countries that vary by interest group system, we investigate if policy actors' choices of advocacy strategies are similar to those in their collaboration network and to those with similar policy beliefs as their own. Results show that, irrespective of the context, actors are likely to use the same advocacy strategies as their collaboration partners and those whose policy beliefs are like their own. This research demonstrates the value of using a policy network approach to move beyond the insider/outsider dichotomy on interest groups' use of advocacy strategies. It makes a clear contribution to this scholarship by advancing the debate on strategies that policy actors employ to influence policymaking through evidencing interdependencies between the strategies used by policy actors due to belief similarity and a 'networking effect'.

AbstractPolicy learning can alter the perceptions of both the seriousness and the causes of a policy problem, thus also altering the perceived need to do something about the problem. This then allows for the informed weighing of different policy options. Taking a social network perspective, we argue that the role of social influence as a driver of policy learning has been overlooked in the literature. Network research has shown that normatively laden belief change is likely to occur through complex contagion—a process in which an actor receives social reinforcement from more than one contact in its social network. We test the applicability of this idea to policy learning using node-level network regression models on a unique longitudinal policy network survey dataset concerning the Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative in Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam. We find that network connections explain policy learning in Indonesia and Vietnam, where the policy subsystems are collaborative, but not in Brazil, where the level of conflict is higher and the subsystem is more established. The results suggest that policy learning is more likely to result from social influence and complex contagion in collaborative than in conflictual settings.