Metatheoretical study of Lijphart's power sharing theory
This research provides a metatheoretical study of Lijphart’s power-sharing theory. The purpose of the study is to analyze the various factors contributing to the formulation and development of Lijphart’s theory by using metatheorizing methodology Mu through two of its four dimensions: the interna...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/63992/1/FEM%202015%2060IR.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This research provides a metatheoretical study of Lijphart’s power-sharing theory. The
purpose of the study is to analyze the various factors contributing to the formulation
and development of Lijphart’s theory by using metatheorizing methodology Mu
through two of its four dimensions: the internal-social dimension and the internalintellectual
dimension. It goes beyond available literature on Lijphart’s theory, to not
only present his approach, but to understand the roots and underlying structure of his
theory.
The researcher, by using Mu, realized that the theoretical framework and underlying
structure of power sharing theory as an empirical and normative democratic theory can
be determined by basing them on four different but overlapping categories that shape
the findings of this study: First, Lijphart’s critical studies of two major democratic
theories; second, examining his background, intellectual activities, connections and
pursuits; third, discovering the empirical and philosophical roots of the theory,
analyzing the methods what Lijphart used in a comparative method and comparative
politics; and fourth determining the main theoretical contexts that provided a
theoretical framework for theory-building.
Several ways were used to get access the information – primary and secondary data –
needed in this study. While, articles, books and some other important documents were
used for secondary data collection, interview is the technique of primary data collection
in this research. Specifically, e-mail interview was chosen to provide appropriate
information to achieve the goals of the study; it included the email interviews with the
theorist and also some other eminent political scientists.
Accordingly, in the first chapter on the findings, the researcher discovered the
theoretical pillars and boundaries of Lijphart’s theory. It was also determined that the
roots of power sharing theory originated in the classical theories of horizontal and
vertical division of power. Furthermore, it was shown that power sharing theory should
initially be recognized as the outcome of Lijphart’s critical studies on two main
democratic theories from the 1960s; Almond’s typology of political systems and
Lipset’s theory of cross-cutting cleavages. In addition, in a separate chapter, it was demonstrated that how the internal-social
factors of the theorist’s background (family and education), and his intellectual pursuits
(activities and intellectual connections) formed the basis of his democratic approach.
The researcher also in the two last chapters on the findings focused on the internalintellectual
factors; in this regard, it was demonstrated that comparative politics,
comparative methods, and new institutionalism have been the main influential
methodological and theoretical contexts in the construction and development of power
sharing theory.
Furthermore, the researcher found that while power sharing theory is principally
recognized among the democratic theories that merely deal with democratic
institutions, this theory should also be considered to some extent from the cultural
perspective. In this regard, in an interview, Steiner in the critique of Liphart’s theory
argued that, in order to institute democratic stability, “institutions are a necessary but
not sufficient condition, you need also culture”. Lijphart confirmed that “I agree with
Jurg Steiner that both culture and structure are needed but I would also point out that
they interact with each other.” Therefore, in this research, power sharing theory was
considered from both institutional and cultural perspectives. |
|---|