|
Matt Mackowiak 268-76-6690 TLC 331 / Henry
Putnam Paper
Robert Putnam, in his novel Making Democracy Work, asserts several
key points relating to the ultimate success or failure of governments based
solely on civic traditions and modern institutions, and uses Italy as a case
study. His central thesis calls
into question the age-old crutch that institutions alone can determine
government performance. In his case
study of Italy, he shows with meticulous attention to detail that as Italy
depolarized and centralized its government in the 1970s, essentially creating
regional governments and thus installing several institutions in every region of
the country, that these institutions had very different results. Putnam, after proving this point in the
first half of the book, then offers his reason for these institutions having
such varying results – civic culture.
Though an ambiguous term, he sets out to prove that the success of
government and its inherent institutions can be directly related to its
people. His argument can be summed
up as “social context and history profoundly condition the effectiveness of
institutions”. His book can be
divided into halves, each with a clear thesis and several important,
well-documented pieces of evidence. Putnam uses various graphs, historical data, and surveys to prove his point of institutional failure and regional patterns. Initially, he proves that Italy may be a very specific case, with only 10% of the nation’s citizens speaking a national language, due to a clear regional and local reverence and ancestry. So in 1970, Italy decided to divide into 21 regions (Americans would call them states, Canadians would call them provinces) and decentralized the power of the government, giving these new regions the ability to govern locally. Not until 1975, after a swing to the left in elections and after many squabbles and compromises, did the regions attain the funding to effectively govern, as well as be granted their own institutions. However, civic traditions determined the way these regional governments were carried out and the majority of the councilors in these regional governments were blue-collar, self-made men. Three-fourths of these men have held prior office. As an effect of this new regional government, there was a significant left-right depolarization between 1970 and 1989, shown through four successive periods. The proportion of extremist and moderate councilors also followed this trend. These data, along with other, seem to show that Putnam believes regional control is a good thing, as evidenced by a graph showing regional councilors showing to believe their own regions to be more “consensual” and to have more “shared interests” over time. During this 19 year period, national leaders were supported less, and regional and local leaders enjoyed increased approval. Putnam shows numbers and statistics that derive that regional control is not a bad thing, and that citizens will always desire local control, as they likely see themselves as playing a larger role in the process, having greater accessibility to representatives, and having leaders who are more representative.
To measure institutional performance, Putnam offers twelve indicators of
the success of policy processes, policy pronouncements, and policy
implementation. They are: cabinet
stability, budget promptness, statistical and information services, reform
legislation, legislative innovation, day care centers, family clinics,
industrial policy instruments, agricultural spending capacity, local health unit
expenditures, housing and urban development (HUD) and bureaucratic
responsiveness (which seems like an oxymoron to me). Now it would be too over-bearing to go
through each one, but we will highlight the important indicators. At the top of the institutional
performance are reform legislation, day care centers, HUD, statistical and
information services, and legislative innovation. Among the lower indicators were
agricultural spending capacity, local health unit spending, budget promptness,
and industrial policy instruments.
However, rating these indicators for the nation is irresponsible and
somewhat irrelevant, since each region is unique. Putnam found a close correlation between
citizen satisfaction and institutional performance for each region. Among the best regions that had the
closest correlation were Emilia-Romagna, Umbria, and Toscana. To explain institutional performance,
Putnam used a chart for economic modernity and found a .77 correlation between
the two. For the most part, the
regions that was the most modern economically also had the best institutional
performance. The three regions
(Emilia-Romagna, Umbria, and Toscana) that displayed the closest correlation
between citizen satisfaction and institutional performance also are among the
most civic regions in the country.
In summary, the best regions with respect to institutional performance
also have the most engaged, mindful, civic, political, informed, and
reform-minded citizens.
Putnam’s book offers an interesting case study of Italy, with a very
scientific approach including correlations and statistics. But the strength of
the book is using those numbers to prove a point, as he takes the time and makes
the effort to make the numbers important to the reader. After reading his novel, I tend to agree
that civic traditions are the central determinant to institutional performance
in any area (be it a city, region, or nation). The weakness of his thesis and the book
is that his subject matter deals with a very ambiguous topic, as words like
“civic” are tough to define and may have different connotations with different
audiences. After reviewing his data
and reading the book, I have come to agree with Putnam’s main arguments. However, to be completely satisfied,
another case study from a different part of the world is necessary. There may be inherent tendencies for
Italy, which may be different for other parts of the world. Overall, making democracy work is a
tough task, but it takes the people to make democratic governments
successful. |