Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hl5gf Total loading time: 0.552 Render date: 2023-01-31T03:51:26.152Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
Perspectives on Politics Perspectives on Politics

Article contents

Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2012

Julia R. Azari  and
Jennifer K. Smith
Julia R. Azari
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Marquette University. Email: julia.azari@marquette.edu
Jennifer K. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Email: jksmith@uwm.edu or jennifer.smith@aya.yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars of the developing world have driven a surge of interest in unwritten or informal institutions as determinants of political outcomes. In advanced industrial democracies, by contrast, informal institutions often remain consigned to the analytic margins. This article makes a case for greater attention to informal political institutions in established democracies, and it introduces a theoretical framework to support such analysis. Informal institutions, understood as the unwritten rules of political life, are seen to perform three functions: they complete or fill gaps in formal institutions, coordinate the operation of overlapping (and perhaps clashing) institutions, and operate parallel to formal institutions in regulating political behavior. These three roles of informal institutions are associated with different characteristic patterns of institutional stability and change. The article illustrates its theoretical framework with case studies from American politics, the subfield in which formal-institutional analysis has flourished most. These cases are the historical norm of a two-term presidency (a completing institution), the unwritten rules of the presidential nomination process (coordinating institutions), the informal practice of obstruction in the Senate (a parallel institution), and the normative expectation that presidents should address the public directly (which performs all three functions).

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 37 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkins, Randall E., and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2000. “Break Out the Mint Juleps? Is New Hampshire the ‘Primary’ Culprit Limiting Presidential Nomination Forecasts?” American Politics Research 28(2): 251–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, Scott H., and Akins, Frances. 1997. “The Informational Role of Caucuses in the U.S. Congress.” American Politics Quarterly 25(4): 407–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, Daniel P. 2008. Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John. 2009. “The Invisible Primary and Its Effects on Democratic Choice.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42(1): 33–8.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1986. “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms.” American Political Science Review 80(4): 1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1991. “Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems.” Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergquist, Lee, and Gilbert, Craig. 2011. “GOP May Try to Pass Tougher Recall Rules.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (June 21): 1A.Google Scholar
Berke, Richard L. 1996. “Gingrich and Whitman Appeal to Forbes to Drop Out of Presidential Contest.” New York Times (March 12): A16.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jonathan. 2011. “Palin and Playing By the Rules.” A Plain Blog About Politics (March 22). (http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/palin-and-playing-by-rules.html), accessed October 13, 2011.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Smith, Steven S.. 1997. Politics or Principle: Filibustering the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Böröcz, József. 2000. “Informality Rules.” East European Politics and Societies 14(2): 348–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, Daniel M. 2006. “The Rule of (Non)Law: Prosecuting Police Killings in Brazil and Argentina.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America, eds. Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, Steven. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, John P. 2000. The Institutional Presidency: Organizing and Managing the White House from FDR to Clinton. 2nd ed.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ceaser, James W. 1979. Presidential Selection: Theory and Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 2009. “Alternative Futures: Comment on Terry Moe's ‘The Revolution in Presidential Studies.’” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39(4): 725–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colignon, Richard A., and Usui, Chikako. 2003. Amakudari: The Hidden Fabric of Japan's Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, Ruth Berins, and Collier, David. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Sue E.S., and Ostrom, Elinor. 1995. “A Grammar of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 89(3): 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. “Tenure and Reeligibility.” In Inventing the American Presidency, ed. Cronin, Thomas. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Darden, Keith. 2008. “The Integrity of Corrupt States: Graft as an Informal State Institution.” Politics & Society 36(1): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, and Vannucci, Alberto. 1999. Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Resources, and Mechanisms of Political Corruption. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Democratic Party. 1912. “Democratic Party Platform of 1912.” The American Presidency Project, eds. Peters, Gerhard and Woolley, John T.. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29590), accessed October 13, 2011.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. 2006. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Farrar-Myers, Victoria. 2007. Scripted for Change: The Institutionalization of the American Presidency. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Craig. 2011. “Recall Drives Could Make History.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (March 7): 1A.Google Scholar
Glauber, Bill, Umhoefer, Dave, and Bergquist, Lee. 2011. “Conflict in the Capitol.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (June 5): 1A.Google Scholar
Greif, Avner, and Laitin, David D.. 2004. “A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change.” American Political Science Review 98(4): 633–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzymała-Busse, Anna. 2001. “Coalition Formation and Regime Change in New Democracies.” Comparative Politics 34(1): 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzymała-Busse, Anna. 2010. “The Best Laid Plans: The Impact of Informal Rules on Formal Institutions in Transitional Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development 45(3): 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, MacIntyre, Andrew, and Tiede, Lydia. 2008. “The Rule of Law and Economic Development.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 205–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2010. “Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, eds. Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C.R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44(5): 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda.” Perspectives on Politics 2(4): 725–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. Jr. 1984 [1949]. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
King, Desmond, Lieberman, Robert C., Ritter, Gretchen, and Whitehead, Laurence, eds. 2009. Democratization in America: A Comparative-Historical Analysis. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korzi, Michael. 2011. Presidential Term Limits in American History: Power, Principles, and Politics. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Krauthammer, Charles. 2011. “Union-Owned.” Washington Post (June 17): A25.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1986. “Unanimous Consent Agreements: Going Along in the Senate.” Journal of Politics 48(3): 541–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 2011. “Wisconsin Power Play.” New York Times (February 21): A17.Google Scholar
Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2000. “Informal Institutions and Democracy.” Democratization 7(4): 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96(4): 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29(4): 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2010. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, eds. Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Ruth. 2011. “Where's Obama.” Washington Post (March 2): A15.Google Scholar
Marley, Patrick, and Walker, Don. 2011. “Court Allows Union Limits.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (June 15): 1A.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2010. “Legislative Obstruction.” Perspectives on Politics 8(4): 1145–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mershon, Carol A. 1994. “Expectations and Informal Rules in Coalition Formation.” Comparative Political Studies 27(1): 40–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C. 2001. Learning by Voting: Sequential Choices in Presidential Primaries and Other Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagourney, Adam. 2008. “Endorsement Points Up Obstacles for Clinton.” New York Times (March 29): A1.Google Scholar
Neale, Thomas H. 2004. Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1990 [1960]. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1992. Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2000. “The End Game in Post-Reform Presidential Nominations.” Journal of Politics 62(4): 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peabody, Bruce G., and Gant, Scott E.. 1999. “The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment.” Minnesota Law Review 83(3): 565–636.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2007. “The Costs of Marginalization: Qualitative Methods in the Study of American Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 145–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne. 2007. “Challenging the Commission's Right of Initiative? Conditions for Institutional Change and Stability.” West European Politics 30(2): 244–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlawsk, David P., Tolbert, Caroline J., and Donovan, Todd. 2011. Why Iowa? How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nomination Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1988. “Studying Congressional Norms: Concepts and Evidence.” Congress & the Presidency 15(2): 139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roller, Emma, and Marley, Patrick. 2011. “Fake Candidates Will Cost Plenty.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (June 14): 1A.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: In Defense of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 3rd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sheingate, Adam. 2010. “Rethinking Rules: Creativity and Constraint in the U.S. House of Representatives.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, eds. Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81(1): 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidoti, Liz. 2008. “McCain Seals GOP Nomination as Romney Suspends Campaign.” Associated Press (February 7).Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1986. “Senate Styles and Senate Decision Making, 1955–1980.” Journal of Politics 48(4): 877–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2007. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1997. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Smith, Jean Edward. 2007. FDR. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Stacey, Jeffrey, and Rittberger, Berthold. 2003. “Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU.” Journal of European Public Policy 10(6): 858–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stathis, Steven. 1990. “The Twenty-Second Amendment: A Practical Remedy or Partisan Maneuver?” Constitutional Comment 7: 61–88.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred, and Linz, Juan J.. 2011. “Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 9(4): 841–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics With Evidence from Argentina.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Kellee S. 2006. “Adaptive Informal Institutions and Endogenous Institutional Change in China.” World Politics 59(1): 116–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Lily L. 2007. “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China.” American Political Science Review 101(2): 355–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey K. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. 2011. Senate Action on Cloture Motions. (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm), accessed July 20, 2011.Google Scholar
Victor, Jennifer Nicoll, and Ringe, Nils. 2009. “The Social Utility of Informal Institutions: Caucuses as Networks in the 110th U.S. House of Representatives.” American Politics Research 37(5): 742–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Schickler, Eric. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zegart, Amy B. 2007. Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *