What is an Institution?

I a previous post I mentioned that strong institutions are argued to be essential to limiting power, which in turn, preserves individual liberties.

But what exactly is an "institution?"


From Chat GPT:  

An institution is essentially an established organization, system, or structure that has a set purpose or function within a society or a community. It can refer to formal entities like schools, governments, hospitals, or banks, but it can also apply to informal systems, like family structures or cultural practices.

Institutions often have rules, norms, or customs that help organize and guide behavior within a community or society. For example, the legal system is an institution because it establishes laws and ensures justice is maintained.


From Merriam Webster: 

- an established organization or corporation (such as a bank or university) especially of a public character, such asd a financial institutions

- a facility or establishment in which people (such as the sick or needy) live and receive care typically in a confined setting and often without individual consent

- a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture such as the institution of marriage

- something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing: "she has become an institution in the theater"


From Wikipedia: 

An institution is a humanly devised structure of rules and norms that shape and constrain social behavior. All definitions of institutions generally entail that there is a level of persistence and continuity. Laws, rules, social conventions and norms are all examples of institutions. Institutions vary in their level of formality and informality.

From the Atlantic: How American Politics Went Insane

Jonathan Rauch bemoans what he calls "chaos syndrome," which he sees as a threat to democratic governance.

- Click here for the article.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

From Vox: The unsexy truth about why the Arab Spring failed

In 2305 - and to a lesser extent 2306 - were discussing democracy. In passing I mention that we seem to be going through an occasional period where democratic governments are scaling back. A leading researcher of democratization calls this a period of democratic recession. You democracies are reverting into oligarchies.

- Click here for: Facing up to the Democratic Recession.

Vox attempts to explain this recession by looking at the fate of some of the government establ;oshed in the Arab Spring. The author argues that the lack of established and functioning institutions is one of the key reasons this is occurring. It helps illustrate a point we make in class about the governmental system established in the U.S Constitution. It is built up on institutions that were developed over British history. This allowed for a degree of stability, meaning they were able to survive. The countries in the middle east do not have institutions with such a history, which helps explain why they slid back into authoritarian military systems.

- Click here for the article:

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak began preparing for revolution long before it came. In the three decades of his rule, he systematically ensured that no opposition party or civil society institution grew strong enough to challenge him. But in ensuring that no institutions were powerful or independent enough to threaten his rule, Mubarak also ensured that they were too weak to support a transition to democracy after he fell.

Mubarak stuffed the interior ministry with political loyalists rather than effective public servants, which allowed corruption and brutality to corrode public security. He turned the judiciary into a pro-regime puppet, which gave him a tool to persecute political opponents but left judges dependent and the rule of law weak. He undermined liberal opposition parties and tolerated the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood only enough to let him credibly claim to the world, "It’s me or the Islamists," using frequent crackdowns and careful electoral rules to ensure that they never got real governing experience.

The one institution that gathered strength was the military. Its role in politics expanded under Mubarak far beyond what his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, had permitted, with Mubarak using patronage to buy the military's loyalty as it grew more powerful.

. . . the conditions that Mubarak deliberately engineered to elongate his rule — an excessively powerful military, a weak opposition without governing experience, corrupt security services, hollowed-out civil society, and no effective democratic institutions — have all remained after his fall, and have undermined successive governments as much as they eventually undermined his own.

When you see that, it becomes clear that the real problem was never the degree to which individual protesters did or did not understand grassroots political organizing. That democratic transition isn't merely the absence of a dictator. Rather, it is the presence of democratic rule.

And democratic rule requires something a lot more important, if less obviously visible, than having a good-guy democrat at the top of the government. It requires the institutions of democracy: political parties capable of winning elections, politicians capable of governing, a bureaucracy capable of implementing that governance, and civil society groups able to provide support and stability to those institutions

Kirkpatrick on the gradual development of democracy

Here's another extended quote from Kirkpatrick's 1979 essay referred to in the previous post.

It reinforces a point I make in several sets of slides that try to tied in the basic design of governing institutions to British history, and the gradual development of independent legislative and judicial institutions that can limit the power of the executive. It's the gradual nature of this development that is important, and once accomplished, freedom can expand to encompass greater numbers of people. It's the result of the process, and it takes time.

That seems to be Kirkpatrick's basic complaint about Carter's foreign policy - if not of the entire ideological point of view he represented to her.

Here's the quote:

In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government’s effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government. Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse. American history gives no better grounds for believing that democracy comes easily, quickly, or for the asking. A war of independence, an unsuccessful constitution, a civil war, a long process of gradual enfranchisement marked our progress toward constitutional democratic government. The French path was still more difficult. Terror, dictatorship, monarchy, instability, and incompetence followed on the revolution that was to usher in a millennium of brotherhood. Only in the 20th century did the democratic principle finally gain wide acceptance in France and not until after World War II were the principles of order and democracy, popular sovereignty and authority, finally reconciled in institutions strong enough to contain conflicting currents of public opinion.

Think about this when you look at the sections in this class on democracy, the expansion of suffrage, and the development of the three key institutions of government - the legislative, executive and judicial. It also lies in the background of the section on ideology. One of the key differences between what we now refer to as liberalism and conservatism is a dispute over whether changes in society can be achieved quickly and deliberately, or only slowly through the development of solid and stable institutions.

All this can end up on your final.

Do institutions create perverse incentives for those who work in them?

Something to chew on as we begin to consider the seeming dysfunction of Congress, and consider possible solutions. Do institution create situations where people have to act in ways contrary to their usual tendencies, or even in ways that woudl otherwise be simply wrong?

Here's a suggestion that they do, and the author uses an example we discussed briefly in one of the classes today when we talked about the need to form groups to provide mutual security. I used gangs, including prisons gangs, as an example. But these gangs - while rational in that context - require people to sometimes do things they normally would not:

Unfortunately, prisons are places of perverse incentives—in which the very norms one must follow to avoid becoming a victim lead inescapably toward violence. In most U.S. prisons, for instance, whites, blacks, and Hispanics exist in a state of perpetual war. This young man is not a racist, and would prefer to interact peacefully with everyone he meets, but if he does not join a gang he is likely to be targeted for rape and other abuse by prisoners of all races. To not choose a side is to become the most attractive victim of all. Being white, he likely will have no rational option but to join a white-supremacist gang for protection.

So he joins a gang. In order to remain a member in good standing, however, he must be willing to defend other gang members, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. He also discovers that he must be willing to use violence at the tiniest provocation—returning a verbal insult with a stabbing, for instance—or risk acquiring a reputation as someone who can be assaulted at will. To fail to respond to the first sign of disrespect with overwhelming force, is to run an intolerable risk of further abuse.

And this applies to society at large, including our legislative institutions:

in many other places in our society, we find otherwise normal men and women caught in the same trap and busily making life for everyone much less good than it could be. Elected officials ignore long-term problems because they must pander to the short-term interests of voters. People working for insurance companies rely on technicalities to deny desperately ill patients the care they need. CEOs and investment bankers run extraordinary risks—both for their businesses and for the economy as a whole—because they reap the rewards of success without suffering the penalties of failure. Lawyers continue to prosecute people they know to be innocent (and defend those they know to be guilty) because their careers depend upon winning cases. Our government fights a war on drugs that creates the very problem of black market profits and violence that it pretends to solve….

Somethign to consider while we begin to discuss rationality and its limits.

From the Gallup Poll: Americans Trust Judicial Branch Most, Legislative Least

No surprise here. This replicates past results. Notice that the democratic branch is least popular.



More on this subject:

- Party Divide Still Evident in Supreme Court Job Approval

- Video commentary.

Summer 2 GOVT 2302 Written Assignment #1

This class focuses on the institutions of government. We look at each individually and in relationship with each other. As we will see, much of what each institution is designed to do is to negate what the other two do. In order to get a handle on the complex relationship that exists between the three branches, I want you to investigate the ongoing saga involving The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and describe what each institution (legislative, executive, and judicial) has done to impact the law.

Also provide a reasonable assessment of what each is likely to do in the future and bring the state governments into the mix.

The more thorough the detail, the better the grade.

A year after the start of the Arab Spring, now what?

Something for 2301:

Revolutions, including the American revolution, tend to have two distinct part. The first is the fight for either independence, or to overthrow an existing regime, and it generally includes a broad coalition of groups that have a shared grievance against the existing leadership. The second is the fight over what is to replace the now defunct regime and it usually outs those coalitions that had been allies, in conflict with each other.

The first step in the American Revolution was the war of independence, and the roughly 2/3rds of the colonial population that were not loyalists cooperated more or less to achieve independence. After the Treaty of Paris was signed, the battle in the United States pitted the commercial classes against the agrarians over whose interests were going to be protected in the new republic. The ratification of the Constitution was a victory for the commercial classes.

That seems to be a useful way to frame the state of the Arab Spring. A series of nations threw off autocratic rule, but none have as yet determined exactly what will replace them. Each nation had a different history and the institutions in each are at different level of development. Some. like Libya, have to build them from scratch. Others, like Egypt, have established institutions, but there is no indication yet which forces in society will control them.

This will be monitored for years, if not decades.

From the Monkey Cage: How Much do Individuals Matter in Politics?

From one of my favorite websites, a question pertinent to this week's topic. Do individuals "ever really have [influence] over the evolution of politics in a country, a region, or even the whole global political systems?"

The question is asked as a result of the recent deaths of Vaclav Havel as well as Kim Jong-Il. The former was president over a democratic republic (albeit a recently created one) while the latter ruled a totalitarian autocracy. The story ponders the influence of individuals in each system and points out what this contrast tells us about what well designed institutions do for a republic - they make it stable.

The arbitrary nature of rule in North Korea makes it far more prone to instability (I suppose by definition) while rule by duly established institutions have procedures within them to ensure that decisions will be more or less stable. They can be subject to change, but not rapid, destabilizing change.

This is a central point I try to make clear in the course material. Well constructed institutions placed in a proper relationship with each other (a relationship that has worked itself out over time) are central not only to the preservation of liberty, but to the establishment of a stable society that leads to prosperity.

From Bruce Bartlett: Gingrich and the Destruction of Congressional Expertise

Bartlett was a top adviser to both Reagan and H.W. Bush. He takes Newt Gingrich to task for dismantling vital institutions within Congress and making the institution less effective than it might otherwise be.

Laws and Rules Invented by Reason

A great video from Niall Ferguson hits some of the material we covered in 2301, what makes western societies different - and prosperous is the ideas and institutions that they are based on.

Francis Fukuyama: The Origins of Political Order

I've yet to read this, but it seems to be worth the time. According to reviews, "the book traces the development of political order from the earliest human societies," which fits perfectly with the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. While we claim to know much about this development - how societies and institutions evolved, we really don't. Here's an attempt to augments out understanding of it.

From the NYT: Qaddafi Leaves Behind Little to Guide Libya in His Absence

For 2301's written assignment this week, an NYT story on one of the problems the groups that will replace Qaddafi - there are no political or civil institutions to speak of in the country. Democracy is driven by the existence of political parties, a press, interest groups and a vibrant, politically astute population. Nothing like that exists in the country, the all have to created from scratch.

For those of you who have to determine whether democracies will be created in Middle Eastern countries following the Arab Spring, this is something to chew on.

As we will discover, one of the accomplishments of the Constitution was to establish solid institutions that provide stable government and can absorb political changes regularly. We have no similar crises when we have changes the presidency or Congress. That's the point of a constitutional system.

Will all countries inevitably adopt western political institutions?

The argument has persisted for a while, and has been revisited in the wake of the Arab Spring, and recent events in Libya.

Both 2301 and 2302 students are aware that I tend to adopt a historical approach to discussing American institutions - their British bases etc... Does this suggest that the historical continuum continues?

The Latest on the Debt Ceiling Showdown - 7/21/11

The latest from the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. His take on the conflict between House and Senate Republican leadership points out the differences between the two branches. Remember that Tea Party members were - due to the electoral differences between the two - able to infiltrate the House more than the Senate. That helps explain - perhaps fully - the course of the conflict.

Senate and House Republican leadership are starting to split, report Jonathan Allen and Manu Raju: "Senate Republicans are starting to send a message to their increasingly isolated House counterparts: It’s time to abandon the hard line or face a public backlash.Whether it’s the top two Senate leaders’ plan to avert a debt crisis or the recently resurrected Gang of Six framework, most senators have shown interest in the kind of bipartisan compromise that provides political cover to all involved. But House Republicans leaped further to the right this week, endorsing a Cut, Cap and Balance bill that attracted just five Democratic votes...House Republican insiders acknowledge that passage of a bipartisan Senate plan would put enormous pressure on them to follow suit or get blamed for any ensuing economic calamity. But most House Republicans aren’t ready to move off their mark."

People Still Hate Congress

Data from Gallup Poll.

And that might not be good for House Republicans.

Institutions Matter

This is the most clear headed comment I've yet seen about the (potential) problem posed by wikileaks and other organizations that seek to subvert established institutions:

. . . could we please pause for a moment amidst all of our technological triumphalism to reflect on the potential downside to all of this antinomian empowerment of the individual? The libertarian imagination, amply furnished with metaphors of invisible hands and spontaneously generated order, is thrilled by such technological empowerment. What could be better than giving every human being on the planet the capacity to subvert all established authorities and institutions, private or public, tyrannical or meritocratic? What would be better, I submit, is lucid self-awareness about how much our liberty depends on the existence of stable, functioning institutions to protect it against those who long to extinguish it in the name of sundry anti-liberal theological and ideological projects.


The framers of the Constitution would agree with this sentiment. It is the very point made in Federalist #10 and helps us understand, in a contemporary context, the dangers that passionate majorities angry at existing institutions, can pose to free societies. Not that stable societies always respect or maintain individual freedom -- they don't always -- or that occasional challenges to the status quo are not worthwhile -- they are in fact necessary in order for societies to evolve and for freedom to expand. But the chaos that inevitably results when stable institutions are gleefully undermined is perhaps the greatest threat to individual freedom. Madison would certainly agree with that sentiment.

That said, institutions must be subject to challenge from time to time in order to determine whether they are in fact preserving freedom or merely maintaining existing privileges. Early efforts to expand suffrage, for example, were opposed for much the same reason. It took time for the expansion of political participation to demonstrate that it would not undermine existing institutions and lead to chaos. This was demonstrated empirically, and the same will have to be demonstrated in this case. Can free societies survive the transparency and instability that unlimited information will force on its institutions? We will see.

For educators, charged with preserving the republic, the trick will be to ensure that students will be made aware of the historical role that properly designed governing institutions and systems have played in securing liberty and not make capricious choices that can undermine them.   

Some Thoughts While Grading 2301 -- Assignment #2

A asked my 2301 a random vague question designed to stir thoughts about consent and how it impacts governmental institutions through periodic elections -- such as the one we're about to have.

Some reactions from my end:

- The decision to offer, or not offer, consent is strictly voluntary -- assuming you have the right to vote. Voter turnout may be a reflection of which group wishes to offer consent or not. Studies of voter turnout suggest that people are more likely to turnout to vote when they do not consent to existing policy rather if they do consent. Intensity matters.

- The system of separated powers -- with its various term lengths and means of gaining office -- allows the public different degrees of consent depending on the office. We can only offer consent on a regular basis to what the House of Representatives does. While voters might be motivated to oppose policies proposed by Obama, that opposition cannot -- purposely -- be directed at him because his term of office allows him to skip this election out. The framers of the Constitution wanted the president to have a longer time frame to accomplish objectives before being held out for evaluation. In addition, the public has a limited opportunity (one-third at a time) to offer consent to what the Senate does.

- We might want to discuss why the people have no opportunity to offer consent to the actions of the national judiciary. Lifetime tenure was meant to provide judges and justices strength and independence. The people seemingly have no role to play in their decisions. This isn't entirely true since the courts respond to cases brought to them by the public, and the public can always exercise consent or opposition to the actions of the judiciary through the legislative and, to a lesser degree, executive branches. While the courts interpret the law, the law is subject to modification.

To Be Continued ....

Are Institutional Changes Necessary to Solve Economic Crisis?

William Galston, writing for the Brookings Institution, thinks so and outlines some proposals.

He begins by pointing out previous periods in American history where institutional change was needed to solve crises.

1 - The replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution helped solidify the newly formed nation.

2 - The passage of the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) resolved the ambivalent relationship between the national and state governments in favor of the former.

3 - The creation of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense and other large agencies allowed the nation to position itself effectively internationally.

He details a variety of institutional changes he considers necessary to handle our current fiscal mess.

Brooks Contasts the Relative Influence of the French and English Enlightenment on the Development of American Government

We went over this in class today and I might make this a required read.