Presentación del dossier. Lecciones de América Latina sobre las dimensiones racionales, cognitivas e institucionales del cambio de políticas

  • Guillaume Fontaine FLACSO Ecuador
Palabras clave: Políticas públicas, neoinstitucionalismo, análisis cognitivo, elección racional, cambio

Resumen

La revisión de la literatura especializada lleva a identificar tres tipos de enfoques analíticos del cambio de políticas. Los racionalistas –con las teorías del incrementalismo, las corrientes múltiples y el equilibrio puntuado– privilegian el proceso de toma de decisión y la racionalidad (limitada) de los actores. Los cognitivistas –con el marco analítico de coaliciones promotoras, la teoría de los referenciales globales/sectoriales y la teoría crítica– hacen hincapié en las representaciones de los problemas de políticas y los discursos legitimadores de decisiones. Los neoinstitucionalistas –con las teorías de la lógica de lo adecuado, la dependencia de la trayectoria y los tres órdenes de cambio de políticas– subrayan la importancia de las instituciones formales e informales en el desenvolvimiento de las políticas públicas.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Referencias

Babb, Sarah. 2013. “The Washington Consensus as Transnational Policy Paradigm: Its Origins, Trajectory and Likely Successor”. Review of International Political Economy 20 (2), 268-297.

Beach, Derek y Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Beach, Derek y Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2016, por publicarse. Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching and Tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Campbell John L. 1998. “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy”. Theory and Society 27 (3), 377-409.

Campbell John L. 2002. “Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy”. Annual Review of Sociology 28, 21-38.

------. 2004. “Chapter 1. Problems of Institutional Analysis” Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Capano, Giliberto. 2009. “Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11 (1), 7-31.

Cashore, Benjamin y Michael Howlett. 2007. “Punctuating which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry”. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3), 532-551.

Cohen, Michael, James March y Johan Olsen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice”. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1), 1-25.

Cox, Robert y Daniel Béland. 2013. “Valence, Policy Ideas, and the Rise of Sustainability”. Governance 26 (2), 307-328.

Daigneault, Pierre-Marc. 2014. “Reassessing the Concept of Policy Paradigm: Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Policy Studies”. Journal of European Public Policy 21 (3), 453-469.

Downs, Anthony. 1998. Political Theory and Public Choice. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer y Theda Skocpol. 1985. Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, Frank y John Forester. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Londres: University College London.

Hall, Peter. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain”. Comparative Politics 25 (3), 275-296.

------. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics”. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, editado por J. Mahoney y D. Rueschemeyer. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, Peter y Rosemary Taylor. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”. Political Studies 44, 936-957.

Hodson, Dermot y Deborah Mabbett. 2009. “UK Economic Policy and the Global Financial Crisis: Paradigm Lost?” Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (5), 1041-1061.

Howlett, Michael. 2009. “Process Sequencing Policy Dinamics: Beyond Homeostasis and Path Dependency”. Journal of Public Policy 29 (3), 241-262.

Howlett, Michael y Benjamin Cashore. 2009. “The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11 (1), 33-46.

Howlett, Michael y Andrea Migone. 2011. “Charles Lindblom is Alive and Well and Living in Punctuated Equilibrium Land”. Policy and Society 30, 53-62.

Howlett, Michael y Jeremy Rayner. 2006. “Understanding the Historical Turn in the Policy Sciences: A Critique of Stochastic, Narrative, Path Dependency and Process-Sequencing Models of Policy-Making Over Time”. Policy Sciences 39, 1-18.

Immergut, Ellen. 1998. “The Substantive Core of the New Institutionalism”. Politics and Society 26 (1), 5-34.

Jenkins-Smith, Hank y Paul Sabatier. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

Jobert, Bruno. 1985. “L’État en Action. L’Apport des Politiques Publiques”. Revue Française de Science Politique 35 (4), 654-682.

------. 1992. “Représentations Sociales, Controverses et Débats dans la Conduite des Politiques Publiques”. Revue Française de Science Politique 42 (2), 219-234.

Jobert, Bruno y Pierre Muller. 1987. L’État en Action: Politique Publiques et Corporatismes. París: Presses Universitaires de France.

John, Peter. 2003. “Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change?” Policy Studies Journal 31 (4), 481-498.

Jones, Bryan D. 2002. “Bounded Rationality and Public Policy: Herbert A. Simon and the Decisional Foundation of Collective Choice”. Policy Sciences 35 (3), 269-284.

Jones, Bryan y Frank Baumgartner. 2004. “A Model of Choice for Public Policy”. Journal of Public Administration Research And Theory 15 (3), 325-351.

Jones, Bryan y Frank Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kay, Adrian y Phillip Baker. 2015. “What Can Causal Process Tracing Offer to Policy Studies? A Review of the Literature”. Policy Studies Journal 43 (1), 1-21.

Kern, Florian y Caroline Kuzemko. 2014. “Measuring and Explaining Policy Paradigm Change: The Case of UK Energy Policy”. Policy & Politics 42 (4), 513-530.

Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Nueva York: Longman.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1971. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1958. “Policy Analysis”. The American Economic Review 48 (3), 298-312.

------. 1959. “The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review 19 (2), 79-88.

------. 1979. “Still Muddling: Not Yet Through”. Public Administration Review 39 (6), 517-526.

Lowi, Theodore. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice”. Public Administration Review 32, 298-310.

Lowndes, Vivien. 2010. “The Institutional Approach”. Theory and Methods in Political Science, editado por G. Stoker, D. Marsh, 60-79. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology”. Theory and Society 29, 507-548.

------. 2012. “The Logic of Process-Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences”. Sociological Methods & Research 41 (4), 570-597.

Mahoney, James y Kathleen Thelen. 2010. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change”. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power, editado por: J. Mahoney, K. Thelen. Cambridge - Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Majone, Giandomenico. 1997. Evidencia, argumentación y persuasión en la formulación de políticas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

March, James y Johan Olsen. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life”. The American Political Science Review 78 (3), 734-749.

------. 1995. Democratic Governance. Nueva York - Londres: Free Press.

------. 2006. “The Logic of Appropriateness”. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, editado por: M. Moran, M. Rein, R. E. Goodin, 689-708. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McBeth, Mark, Elizabeth A. Shanahan, Ruth J. Arnell y Paul L. Hathaway. 2007. “The Intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory”. The Policy Studies Journal 35 (1), 87-108.

Muller, Pierre. 2000. “L’Analyse Cognitive des Politiques Publiques: Vers une Sociologie Politique de l’Action Publique”. Revue Française de Science Politique 50 (2), 189-208.

------. 2005. “‘Esquisse d’une Théorie du Changement dans l’Action Publique’. Structures, Acteurs et Cadres Cognitifs”. Revue Française de Science Politique 55 (1), 155-187.

------. 2008. Las políticas públicas. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Oliver, Michael y Hugh Pemberton. 2004. “Learning and Change in Twentieth-Century British Economic Policy”. Governance 17, 415-441.

Palier, Bruno e Yves Surel. 2005. “Les ‘Trois i’ et l’Analyse de l’État en Action”. Revue Française de Science Politique 55 (1), 7-32.

Peters, Guy. 2003. El nuevo institucionalismo: la teoría institucional en ciencia política. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics”. The American Political Science Review 94 (2), 251-267.

Powell, Walter W. y Paul J. DiMaggio. 1999. El nuevo institucionalismo en el análisis organizacional. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Rayner, Jeremy. 2009. “Understanding Policy Change as a Historical Problem”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11 (1), 83-96.

Real-Dato, José. 2009. “Mechanisms of Policy Change: A Proposal for a Synthetic Explanatory Framework”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11 (1), 117-143.

Publicado
2015-09-01
Cómo citar
Fontaine, G. (2015). Presentación del dossier. Lecciones de América Latina sobre las dimensiones racionales, cognitivas e institucionales del cambio de políticas. Íconos - Revista De Ciencias Sociales, 19(53), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.53.2015.1518