Political institutions: a generalization of the content of approaches to the definition of the concept

Keywords: institute, organization, rules, political institute, institutionalization, concepts, society, state

Abstract

In the scientific article, the approaches to understanding the political institution are generalized. A historical analysis of the development of the stages of research on political institutions is conducted, namely, «old» institutionalism and «new» institutionalism. The concept of «institution», its structure and functions was analyzed, and the distinction between the concepts «institution» and «organization» was established. During the research, several approaches to understanding the political institution were analyzed. The first approach defines the political institution as the rules of the game that were created by society, the main purpose of such institutions is to regulate the relationships between individuals in society, as well as individuals and the government. The second approach determines the institutions of the organization, which have a structure, operate within the framework of formal laws. The role of political institutions in shaping the political order of the state is determined. It was established that political institutions, firstly, help in the settlement of conflicts and problems in the state, and secondly, they help in achieving the goals of the state. The conditions for the formation and modernization of political institutions, as well as the role of society in these processes, are determined. Analysis of the types of political institutions allowed establishing the main institutions on which the functioning of a democratic state depends. It is also established that such political institutions should have a hierarchical structure with a division of powers. These institutions must be formal, that is, be legal. In the process of research, it was certain that political institutions, for their development, should have, first and foremost, the support of society. The level of development of political institutions is determined by the level of institutionalization, which can be determined by adaptability, complexity, autonomy, internal generalization of political institutions. The activities of political institutions should reflect public interests, that is, political institutions should ensure the development of all spheres of society. The study allowed the author to conclude that the study of political institutions on the basis of only one scientific approach will not allow explaining the current political processes in the state. Identifying these scientific approaches, one can conclude that political institutions are a set of social relations in the political sphere that are regulated by formal and non-formal rules and have an organizational structure.

References

Bunets’kyy L. (2011). Instytutsional’na problematyka v suchasniy politychniy nautsi: analiz fenomenu «politychnyy instytut» [Institutional Problems in Modern Political Science: An Analysis of the Phenomenon «Political Institute»]. Visnyk L’vivs’koho universytetu. Seriya filosofs’ko-politolohichni studiyi, 1, 140-148 (in Ukrainian).

Veblen T. (2010). Teorija prazdnogo klassa [The Theory of the Leisure Class]. Moscow, URSS (in Russian).

Giddens, Je. (2005). Ustroenie obshhestva: Ocherk teorii strukturacii [The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration]. Moscow, Akademicheskij Proekt (in Russian).

Dal’ R. (2000). O demokratii [On Democracy]. Moscow, Aspekt Press (in Russian).

Demchyshak, R. (2015). Naukovi pidkhody do rozuminnya sutnosti ponyattya «politychnyy instytut» [Scientific approaches to understanding the essence of the concept of «political institute»]. Ukrayins’ka natsional’na ideya: realiyi ta perspektyvy rozvytku, 27, 9-14 (in Ukrainian).

Djurkgejm, Je. (1996). O razdelenii obshhestvennogo truda: Metod sociologii [On the division of social labor: The method of sociology]. Moscow, Nauka (in Russian).

Zaznaev, O. (2006). Poluprezidentskaja sistema: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty [Semi-Presidential System: Theoretical and Applied Aspects]. Кazan, Kazanskij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. V. I. Ul’janova-Lenina (in Russian).

Zubryts’ka, D. (2010). Instytut politychnoyi opozytsiyi v Ukrayini / D. Zubryts’ka [Institute of Political Opposition in Ukraine]. Naukovyy visnyk Uzhhorods’koho universytetu. Politolohiya, Sotsiolohiya, Filosofiya, 15, 141–144 (in Ukrainian).

Klymkova, I. I. (2011). Osoblyvosti protsesu instytutsionalizatsiyi demokratiyi v period politychnoyi transformatsiyi [Features of the process of institutionalization of democracy during the period of political transformation]. Naukovyy chasopys NPU imeni M. P. Drahomanova. Politychni nauky ta metodyka vykladannya sotsial’no-politychnykh dystsyplin, 22, 6, 36–40 (in Ukrainian).

Mykhal’chenko, M., & Mykhal’chenko, O. (2013).Transformatsiya politychnykh instytutiv Ukrayiny: novitni problemy y tendentsiyi [Transformation of Ukrainian Political Institutions: New Problems and Trends]. Viche, 6, 22–24 (in Ukrainian).

Nort, D. (1997). Instituty, institucional’nye izmenenija i funkcionirovanie jekonomiki [Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance]. Moscow, Fond jekonomicheskoj knigi «Nachala» (in Russian).

Pivtorak, I. O. (2004). Formal’ni i neformal’ni instytuty v liberal’nykh demokratiyakh [Formal and informal institutions in liberal democracies]. Naukovi pratsi ONAZ im. O.S. Popova, 3. 132– 133 (in Ukrainian).

Pivtorak O. V. (2005). Umovy stanovlennya hromadyans’koho suspil’stva v Ukrayini (politychni aspekty) [Conditions for the establishment of civil society in Ukraine (political aspects)]. Naukovi pratsi. Politychni nauky, 31, 44, 32–37 (in Ukrainian).

Gudin, R., & Klingemanna, H–D. (1999). Politicheskaja nauka: novye napravlenija [Political Science: New Directions]. Moscow, Veche (in Russian).

Rybiy, O. (2011). Neformal’ni politychni instytuty: sutnist’, klasyfikatsiya, rezul’taty diyal’nosti [Informal political institutions: essence, classification, results of activity]. Politychnyy menedzhment, 1, 34–42 (in Ukrainian).

Hantington, S. (2004). Politicheskij porjadok v menjajushhihsja obshhestvah [Political Order in Changing Societies]. Moscow, «Progress-Tradicija» (in Russian).

De Córdoba, M. B. F. (2010). Public Interest In Political Philosophy. A Necessary Ethical And Regulatory Concept For Territorial Planning. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 53, 381–386. Access mode: http://Dialnet-ElInteresGeneralEnLaFilosofiaPolitica-3321108_1.pdf.

Offe, C. (1994). Designing institutions for East European transitions. Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS). Wien. Access mode: http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-267177.

Peters, B. G. (2012). Institutional Theory In Political Science: The «New Institutionalism». London and New York. Continuum. Access mode: https://crawfordphd.wikispaces.com/file/view/Peters-5.pdf.

Rhodes, R. A. W., & Binder S. A., & Rockman B. (2008). The Oxford Handbook Of Political Institutions. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Access mode: https://cpriufpe.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/oxford-hanfbook-of-political-institutions.pdf.

Terry, M. (1990). Moe Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6, 213-253. Access mode: https://files-politicalscience-stanford-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/politicalinstitutions_neglectedside.pdf.

Published
2017-09-15
How to Cite
Petrov, P. H. (2017). Political institutions: a generalization of the content of approaches to the definition of the concept. Grani, 20(9), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.15421/1717123
Section
Article