The Adoption Problem
The adoption problem is surpassingly important. Because the obstacles
are so many and so complex, I can provide only a taste here.4
A well-kept secret among proponents of various prescriptions for interethnic
accommodation is that they are rarely adopted. Moreover, very
little thought has been given to the conditions under which particular
prescriptions for severely divided societies can be adopted.
The adoption problem is really a congeries of bargaining problems.
A quick but incomplete enumeration should suffice to indicate the obstacles
to adoption of either consociational or centripetal institutions.
First, there are asymmetric preferences. Majorities want majority
rule; minorities want guarantees against majority rule. Consequently,
minorities may prefer consociation; majorities do not. So a consociational
regime can be adopted only when majorities (or large pluralities)
are momentarily weak, often after periods of extended violence. At a
later stage, when majorities regain their strength, they may overthrow
it, as Greek Cypriots did in 1963 and as the Hutu in Burundi might be
inclined to do now.
Second, there is general risk-aversion. Ethnic politics is a high-stakes
game, and there are strong inclinations to stay with what is familiar.
Third, negotiators do not come to the table innocent and naked. They
have biases that rule in some models and rule out others. Often they
favor institutions prevailing in the most successful democracies, which
generally do not suffer from the most severe ethnic problems, or models
derived from an ex-colonial power. There are also historical biases
that induce decision makers to avoid repeating institutional choices that
they associate with past mistakes, even though their reading of history
is contestable or conditions may have changed. Biases narrow choice
The Adoption ProblemThe adoption problem is surpassingly important. Because the obstaclesare so many and so complex, I can provide only a taste here.4A well-kept secret among proponents of various prescriptions for interethnicaccommodation is that they are rarely adopted. Moreover, verylittle thought has been given to the conditions under which particularprescriptions for severely divided societies can be adopted.The adoption problem is really a congeries of bargaining problems.A quick but incomplete enumeration should suffice to indicate the obstaclesto adoption of either consociational or centripetal institutions.First, there are asymmetric preferences. Majorities want majorityrule; minorities want guarantees against majority rule. Consequently,minorities may prefer consociation; majorities do not. So a consociationalregime can be adopted only when majorities (or large pluralities)are momentarily weak, often after periods of extended violence. At alater stage, when majorities regain their strength, they may overthrowit, as Greek Cypriots did in 1963 and as the Hutu in Burundi might beinclined to do now.Second, there is general risk-aversion. Ethnic politics is a high-stakesgame, and there are strong inclinations to stay with what is familiar.Third, negotiators do not come to the table innocent and naked. Theyhave biases that rule in some models and rule out others. Often theyชอบขึ้นในเหมือน ๆ ประสบ สถาบันซึ่งโดยทั่วไปไม่ได้เป็นทุกข์จากปัญหาชนกลุ่มน้อยรุนแรงมากที่สุด หรือรูปแบบมาจาก ex-โคโลเนียลเพา นอกจากนี้ยังมีอดีตยอมที่ก่อให้เกิดผู้ตัดสินใจเพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงการทำซ้ำการเลือกสถาบันที่พวกเขาเชื่อมโยงกับความผิดพลาดที่ผ่านมา แม้การอ่านประวัติศาสตร์เป็น contestable หรืออาจมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงเงื่อนไข ยอมจำกัดตัวเลือก
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
