However, as Lijphart himself is well aware, we find consociational political institutions
in ‘‘divided societies,’’ as he puts it—those divided for example, by ethnic or
religious cleavages (1969). These divisions are the historical reason for various sorts
of veto powers for minorities. Consequently, it may not be the political institutions
that result in the kinder, gentler democracies, but perhaps the ‘‘divided’’ societies that
have these sorts of political institutions may have also tended to develop integrative
social institutions of various types, precisely to overcome the divisions that led to
political blockages. This ‘‘chicken-and-egg’’ problem in institutional development is
often referred to as the problem of ‘‘endogeneity.’’
However, as Lijphart himself is well aware, we find consociational political institutionsin ‘‘divided societies,’’ as he puts it—those divided for example, by ethnic orreligious cleavages (1969). These divisions are the historical reason for various sortsof veto powers for minorities. Consequently, it may not be the political institutionsthat result in the kinder, gentler democracies, but perhaps the ‘‘divided’’ societies thathave these sorts of political institutions may have also tended to develop integrativesocial institutions of various types, precisely to overcome the divisions that led topolitical blockages. This ‘‘chicken-and-egg’’ problem in institutional development isoften referred to as the problem of ‘‘endogeneity.’’
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
