立法研究中的理性选择理论:没有浪漫主义的政治模式

Thomas Saalfeld
{"title":"立法研究中的理性选择理论:没有浪漫主义的政治模式","authors":"Thomas Saalfeld","doi":"10.1080/13572339508420414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rational‐choice theory, especially in its neo‐institutionalist variants, is a useful tool for the explanation of legislative behaviour. It allows to generate testable hypotheses about the link between the motives of individual parliamentarians, institutional structures and policies. Based on a general theory of action, rational‐choice explanations are deductive and reductionist making them particularly useful for the comparative study of parliaments. Many criticisms of rational‐choice theory do not apply in the well‐structured, competitive context of democratic parliamentary politics. Analytical tools like the concept of the ‘legislative firm’ or the ‘interest‐group approach of government’ help to generate explanations of the link between institutions and policy outputs that are not ad hoc and can be tested against a broad array of empirical data.","PeriodicalId":313993,"journal":{"name":"The Impact of Legislatures","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rational-Choice Theory in Legislative Studies: Models of Politics without Romanticism\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Saalfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13572339508420414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rational‐choice theory, especially in its neo‐institutionalist variants, is a useful tool for the explanation of legislative behaviour. It allows to generate testable hypotheses about the link between the motives of individual parliamentarians, institutional structures and policies. Based on a general theory of action, rational‐choice explanations are deductive and reductionist making them particularly useful for the comparative study of parliaments. Many criticisms of rational‐choice theory do not apply in the well‐structured, competitive context of democratic parliamentary politics. Analytical tools like the concept of the ‘legislative firm’ or the ‘interest‐group approach of government’ help to generate explanations of the link between institutions and policy outputs that are not ad hoc and can be tested against a broad array of empirical data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Impact of Legislatures\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Impact of Legislatures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339508420414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Impact of Legislatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339508420414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

理性选择理论,特别是其新制度主义变体,是解释立法行为的有用工具。它可以对个别议员的动机、体制结构和政策之间的联系产生可检验的假设。基于一般的行动理论,理性选择解释是演绎的和简化的,这使得它们对议会的比较研究特别有用。对理性选择理论的许多批评并不适用于结构良好、竞争激烈的民主议会政治。分析工具,如“立法公司”或“政府利益集团方法”的概念,有助于产生制度和政策产出之间联系的解释,这些解释不是临时的,可以根据广泛的经验数据进行测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rational-Choice Theory in Legislative Studies: Models of Politics without Romanticism
Rational‐choice theory, especially in its neo‐institutionalist variants, is a useful tool for the explanation of legislative behaviour. It allows to generate testable hypotheses about the link between the motives of individual parliamentarians, institutional structures and policies. Based on a general theory of action, rational‐choice explanations are deductive and reductionist making them particularly useful for the comparative study of parliaments. Many criticisms of rational‐choice theory do not apply in the well‐structured, competitive context of democratic parliamentary politics. Analytical tools like the concept of the ‘legislative firm’ or the ‘interest‐group approach of government’ help to generate explanations of the link between institutions and policy outputs that are not ad hoc and can be tested against a broad array of empirical data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信