Advertisement

Institutions, Coordination, and Leadership

  • Tapio RaunioEmail author
  • Thomas Sedelius
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Presidential Politics book series (PASTPRPO)

Abstract

This chapter contains the theoretical framework the study in this book is based on. Embedded in institutional theory and building on four strands of literature—semi-presidentialism, public administration, political leadership, and foreign policy analysis—it highlights the role of institutions in facilitating successful policy-making. It outlines key concepts and findings from institutional theory before moving more specifically to the incentives that presidents and prime ministers have for engaging in intra-executive cooperation. The specific challenges related to leadership in foreign and security policy, including European Union affairs, are emphasized. The chapter identifies various intra-executive coordination mechanisms and puts forward a theoretical framework for the subsequent empirical chapters.

Keywords

Semi-presidentialism Public administration Political leadership Foreign policy analysis Institutional theory Institutions Formal and informal institutions Coordination Leadership Intra-executive cooperation 

Bibliography

  1. Bulmer, S., & Lequesne, C. (Eds.). (2013). The Member States of the European Union (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buzan, B., Waever, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  3. Chaisty, P., Cheeseman, N., & Power, T. J. (2018). Coalitional Presidentialism in Comparative Perspective: Minority Presidents in Multiparty Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Tocqueville, A. (1990) [1835/1840]. Democracy in America (Vol. I). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  6. Drent, M., & Meijnders, M. (2015, September). Multi-year Defence Agreements: A Model for Modern Defence? Clingendael Report. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  7. Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2014). Prime Ministers and Their Advisers in Parliamentary Democracies. In R. A. W. Rhodes & P. ‘t Hart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (pp. 517–531). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Elgie, R. (2001). Cohabitation: Divided Government French-Style. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Divided Government in Comparative Perspective (pp. 106–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elgie, R. (2018). List of Cohabitations. The Semi-Presidential One. Blog Post by Robert Elgie. www.semipresidentialism.com. Accessed 7 Oct 2018.
  10. Finnemore, M. (1996). National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gherghina, S., & Kopecký, P. (Eds.). (2016). Politicization of Administrative Elites in Western Europe. Acta Politica, 51(4), 407–412.Google Scholar
  12. Gilmour, J. B. (2002). Institutional and Individual Influences on the President’s Veto. The Journal of Politics, 64(1), 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldmann, K. (2005). Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo-Institutionalism. Governance, 18(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodin, R. E. (Ed.). (1996). The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Greif, A., & Kingston, C. (2011). Institutions: Rules or Equilibria? In N. Schofield & G. Caballero (Eds.), Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting (pp. 13–44). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hager, G. L., & Sullivan, T. (1994). President-Centered and Presidency-Centered Explanations of Presidential Public Activity. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 1079–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegeland, H. (2007). The European Union in National Parliaments: Domestic or Foreign Policy? A Study of Nordic Parliamentary Systems. In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National Parliaments Within the Enlarged European Union: From ‘Victims’ of Integration to Competitive Actors? (pp. 95–115). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2006a). Conclusion. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal Institutions & Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 274–284). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2006b). Introduction. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal Institutions & Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 1–30). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Helms, L. (Ed.). (2012). Comparative Political Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, C. (2013). The National Interest in Question: Foreign Policy in Multicultural Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howell, W. G., Jackman, S. P., & Rogowski, J. C. (2013). The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassim, H., Guy Peters, B., & Wright, V. (Eds.). (2000). The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kernell, S. (2007). Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Köker, P. (2017). Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lauth, H.-J. (2000). Informal Institutions and Democracy. Democratization, 7(4), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lauth, H.-J. (2015). Formal and Informal Institutions. In J. Gandhi & R. Ruiz-Rufino (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions (pp. 56–69). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Lazardeux, S. G. (2015). Cohabitation and Conflicting Politics in French Policymaking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leuffen, D. (2009). Does Cohabitation Matter? French European Policy-Making in the Context of Divided Government. West European Politics, 32(6), 1140–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Locke, J. (1960) [1690]. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The Logic of Appropriateness (Arena Working Paper 04/09). Oslo.Google Scholar
  36. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The Logic of Appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marland, A., Lewis, J. P., & Flanagan, T. (2017). Governance in the Age of Digital Media and Branding. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 30(1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative Logics for Decision Making in Social Settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2015). Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell, D. (2005). Centralizing Advisory Systems: Presidential Influence and the U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (1999). Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (2000). Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. North, D. C. (1993). Institutions and Credible Commitment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149(1), 11–23.Google Scholar
  46. O’Neal, J. R., Lian, B., & Joyner, J. H., Jr. (1996). Are the American People “Pretty Prudent”? Public Responses to U.S. Uses of Force, 1950–1988. International Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Passarelli, G. (Ed.). (2015). The Presidentialization of Political Parties: Organizations, Institutions and Leaders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raunio, T. (2012). Semi-Presidentialism and European Integration: Lessons from Finland for Constitutional Design. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4), 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raunio, T. (2016). Refusing to Be Sidelined: The Engagement of the Finnish Eduskunta in Foreign Affairs. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(4), 312–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raunio, T., & Wagner, W. (2017). Towards Parliamentarization of Foreign and Security Policy? West European Politics, 40(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rhodes, R. A. W., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, S. A., & Rockman, B. A. (Eds.). (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Riggs, F. W. (1988). The Survival of Presidentialism in America: Para-Constitutional Practices. International Political Science Review, 9(4), 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenau, J. N. (1971). The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Samuels, D. J., & Shugart, M. S. (2010). Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scharpf, F. W. (1989). Decision Rules, Decision Styles and Policy Choices. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities (4th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Siavelis, P. (2006). Accommodating Informal Institutions and Chilean Democracy. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal Institutions & Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 33–55). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Strøm, K. (1990). A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.). (2008). Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tavits, M. (2009). Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waever, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On Security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (Eds.). (1993). Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  66. Yong, B., & Hazell, R. (2014). Special Advisers: Who They Are, What They Do and Why They Matter. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management and BusinessTampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.School of Education, Health and Social SciencesDalarna UniversityFalunSweden

Personalised recommendations