تجزیه و تحلیل سازمانی و توسعه اقتصادی سیاست: یادداشت ها در دستور کار اعمال می شود از مدرسه بلومینگتون: توسعه پیتر Boettke و نمای کلی کریستوفر Coyne از برنامه تحقیقاتی کارگاه آموزشی در نظریه سیاسی و تجزیه و تحلیل سیاست
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|13026||2005||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||3290 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.06.013, Volume 57, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 159–165
This paper takes as a starting point Boettke and Coyne's argument and uses it as a vehicle in order to focus on one aspect related to the Bloomington research program that was mentioned but not elaborated by them: the applied theory agenda that this program has been inspiring. Specific concentration is placed on one particular facet of that agenda: the issue of economic development policies.
In their discussion of the Bloomington research program, Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne not only offer a very compelling “intellectual archaeology” of the Bloomington School of Institutional Analysis, but also manage to outline in a precise way the main distinctive features of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom's work. My contribution will take as a starting point Boettke and Coyne's argument and use it as a vehicle in order to focus on one aspect related to the Bloomington research program that was mentioned but not elaborated by them: the applied theory agenda that this program has been inspiring. My comments will especially concentrate on one particular facet of that agenda: the issue of economic development policies. There are two main reasons why I consider that the issue of economic development policies deserves a special discussion in the present context. The first is because Elinor and Vincent Ostrom's contribution to the way development is understood and analyzed today is undoubtedly outstanding. Their work offers a paradigmatic example of the policy relevance of the intellectual tradition so precisely and coherently outlined by Boettke and Coyne in their paper. However, there is a second reason I feel compelled to emphasize this topic, and this reason is somehow special. I am representing in this forum one of the many international, non-American students who over the years were attracted by the lure of the Bloomington Workshop and came to US to study with Lin and Vincent. For most of us, our interest in the Workshop was not merely theoretical or academic. Most of us wanted to apply the ideas and approaches learned at Bloomington to concrete policy problems confronting our (developing or transition) economies and societies. For us, the main fascination with Elinor and Vincent Ostrom's work came from its extraordinary potential to generate novel and resourceful policy solutions to be applied back in our countries. Our relationship with the Workshop was thus predetermined and shaped by this special concern with economic development policy issues, and I find it natural that today, in this forum, my comments should echo that fact.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The work of the Bloomington scholars has been long involved with analyzing the “strength of polycentric governance systems in coping with complex, dynamic biophysical systems” and with the way in which in such systems, social actors have access to local knowledge, obtain rapid feedback from their own policy changes, and can learn from the experience of other parallel units (Ostrom, 2001, p. 3). Their studies on the vulnerability of governance systems and their adaptability potential are thus an important step forward in building a better approach to institutional development and governance systems based on the recognition that no “social–biophysical system is itself a static system” (Ostrom, 2001, p. 3). A viable national economic system needs robust flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increase adaptive capacity without foreclosing future development options. The concrete policy corollary is that instead of a restricted focus on this or that institution and organization in isolation, one needs to produce a social environment that facilitates the learning and adaptation of organizations, individuals and institutions. By explicitly articulating that corollary and by theoretically and empirically exploring the conditions that generate and sustain such an environment, the Bloomington scholars are today a major source of insights for the new thinking in economic development policy, a new thinking that may lead to real paradigm change in that domain.