Vivien A. Schmidt (born 1949) is an American academic of political science and international relations. At Boston University, she is the Jean Monnet Chair of European Integration Professor of International Relations in the Pardee School of Global Studies, and Professor of Political Science. She is known for her work on political economy, policy analysis, democratic theory, and new institutionalism.[1] She is a 2018 recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship[2] and has been named a Chevalier in the French Legion of Honor.[3]
In 2018 Schmidt received a Guggenheim Fellowship for a book project on “The Rhetoric of Discontent: A Transatlantic Inquiry into the West’s Crisis of Democratic Capitalism” and was named by the President of the French Republic as a Chevalier in the Legion of Honor. In 2017 she was awarded the Society of Women in International Political Economy (SWIPE) Award for mentoring women in international relations.[5] Other awards include an honorary doctorate from the Free University of Brussels (ULB), the Belgian Franqui Inter university Chair for foreign scholars, a Rockefeller Bellagio Center Residency, and Fulbright Fellowships to France and the UK. She is past head of the European Union Studies Association and sits on numerous editorial and advisory boards, including the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, the Brussels Foundation for European Progressive Studies, the Vienna Institute for Peace, and the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.
Schmidt's scholarly research encompasses political theory, comparative politics, and international relations. Her comparative work focuses on the changing nature of European politics and economics in a globalizing world, her theoretical work on the role of ideas and discourse in the dynamics of change. Schmidt is the author or editor of over a dozen books, including: Democracy in Europe (Oxford 2006), named in 2015 by the European Parliament as one of the ‘100 Books on Europe to Remember;’ Resilient Liberalism in Europe's Political Economy (co-edited, Cambridge 2013); The Futures of European Capitalism; Democratizing France. Her forthcoming book is entitled: Europe's Crisis of Legitimacy: Governing by Rules and Ruling by Numbers in the Eurozone (Oxford 2019) Her epistemological work on “discursive institutionalism,” which explores the ideational and discursive processes in comparative politics, has informed her books as well as articles published in the Annual Review of Political Science, the European Political Science Review, and other journals.
Schmidt is also an accomplished fine art photographer who has exhibited widely. (See her photo website at http://www.vivienschmidt.com)
Research
Vivien Schmidt at Boston University School of Law, 2016
Schmidt's work is situated at the intersection of political theory (democratic theory and epistemology), comparative politics (especially France but also Germany, the UK, and Italy), and international relations (the European Union). The three principal areas of interest that have defined her intellectual and academic trajectory are: European integration and its impact on national policies, processes, and democracy; European and national political economic and social policies; and the epistemological and methodological underpinnings of such research in ‘institutional theory.’
Schmidt's interest in institutional theory and epistemology, and her highly innovative discursive institutionalism, began with her PhD dissertation, which was focused on the philosophy of science and its implications for explanation in the social sciences, and political science in particular. It argued that rather than looking at what philosophers of science say about science, which often idealizes the lawlike approach of physics, we should look at what they do, which is to use the four primary methodological approaches in the social sciences to explain science —lawlike, sociological, historical, and interpretive. This insight served her well when the methodological wars began in political science in the 1990s, and comparative political scientists were enjoined no longer to do what they had long done, which was to intertwine interests, institutions, culture, and ideas and discourse into problem-oriented research on politics and policy. Instead, they split into different neo-institutionalist camps, focused on rational institutionalist incentive structures, historical institutionalist path dependency, or sociological institutionalist cultural framing. Left out was any overarching institutionalist theory for the ideational constructs of meaning, let alone the discursive dynamics of communication. Schmidt sought to fill this gap with what she has called discursive institutionalism, which she developed in stand-alone articles, most notably in two highly cited articles in the Annual Review of Political Science[6] and the European Political Science Review, as well as in her work on democracy and political economy.
Discursive institutionalism gives a name to the very rich and diverse set of ways of explaining political and social reality that are focused on the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes of discourse in institutional context (see e.g., Schmidt 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010). As such, it calls attention to the significance of approaches that theorize about ideas and discourse in their many different forms, types, and levels as well as in the interactive processes of policy coordination and political communication by which ideas and discourse are generated, articulated, and contested by sentient (thinking, speaking, and acting) agents. Discursive institutionalism is therefore open to a wide range of approaches focused on ideas and discourse. Discourse encompasses not just the representation or embodiment of ideas – as in discourse analysis (following, say, Foucault, Bourdieu, or Laclau and Mouffe) but also the interactive processes. These involve not only the discursive processes of coordination by and through which ideas are generated in the policy sphere by discursive policy communities and entrepreneurs but also the processes of communication, deliberation (e.g., Habermas), and /or contestation engaged in the political sphere by political leaders, social movements, and the public.
Schmidt's work on European policies, policymaking processes, and democracy dates back to her first book, Democratizing France[7] (Cambridge 1990), and related publications on state policies and debates about the decentralization of French local government over time. It argues that while the terms of the policy debates pitting national unity against local liberty were set by the French Revolution, the legislative history was one in which political interest consistently trumped political principle except at two critical moments: in the 1870-80s, consecrating local democratic power through the election of the mayor; and in the 1980s, eliminating the prefect's a priori control plus establishing the election of the presidents of regions and departments.
Her subsequent work moved from local/national to national/supranational policymaking, by considering European integration and its impact on member-state policies and polities. In her book Democracy in Europe[8] and related publications, she explored the nature and scope of EU integration and its effects on national democracy through doubly contrasting cases—the ‘simple polities’ of Britain and France versus the ‘compound polities’ of Germany and Italy. This is where she also began to develop the theoretical argument that is at the basis of her work on legitimacy, in which she added to the traditional terms of input legitimacy—government by and of the people via citizen participation and representation—and output legitimacy—governance for the people through policy results—the term ‘throughput’ legitimacy. This is about the quality of the policymaking processes, including their efficacy, accountability, inclusiveness, and openness to interest consultation with the people.
Schmidt's work on European political economic and social policies began with her second book From State to Market?[9] (Cambridge 1996) and related publications. Here, she showed that despite major transformations in the Mitterrand years, the French state remained central not only through the dirigiste way in which it ended dirigisme but also in the fact that the retreat of the state from leadership of business actually meant the colonization of business by the men of the state. This study was followed by a third monograph, The Futures of European Capitalism, which examined the impact of globalization and Europeanization on the policies, practices, and politics of Britain's market capitalism, Germany’s managed capitalism, and France’s ‘state-enhanced’ capitalism. In the interim, she also co-directed an international research project at the Max Planck Institute in Cologne that resulted in a two-volume study, Welfare and Work in the Open Economy[10] (co-edited with F. W. Scharpf, Oxford 2000) on the impact of international economic pressures on national social policy in twelve advanced industrialized countries. In this, she wrote a long chapter providing a comparative assessment of the role of values and discourse in the politics of adjustment that also helped crystallize her neo-institutionalist framework focused on ideas and discourse in institutional context.
More recently, Schmidt co-directed a collaborative project that resulted in Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy[11] (co-edited with M. Thatcher—Cambridge 2013), which offers five lines of analysis to explain the resilience of neo-liberal ideas: their ideational adaptability, their rhetoric without the reality of implementation, their dominance in debates, their strategic use by interests, and their embedding in institutions.
Schmidt's latest work on discursive institutionalism,[12] developed in conjunction with Martin Carstensen (Carstensen and Schmidt 2016, 2017), helps lend insight into the power of ideas and discourse. Instead of either ignoring ideas or subsuming them under the classic understandings of power as coercive, structural, institutional, and productive, discursive institutionalism separates out ideational and discursive power in order to highlight its distinctive attributes. This power is conceptualized in three ways: persuasive power through ideas and discourse, coercive power over ideas and discourse, and structural/institutional power in ideas and discourse. Most common in discursive institutionalism is power through ideas, which occurs when actors have the capacity to persuade other actors of the cognitive validity and/or normative value of their worldview through the use of ideational elements via their discourse. Power over ideas is the capacity of actors to control and dominate the meaning of ideas through discourse. This may occur directly, say, by elite actors’ coercive power to impose their ideas by monopolizing public discourse and action (often as an addition to their material resources for coercion), or indirectly, by actors shaming opponents into conformity (e.g., when social movements push elites to adopt their ideas and discourse) or by resisting alternative interpretations (e.g., when neo-liberal economists shut out neo-Keynesian alternatives). Finally, power in ideas is found where certain discourses serve to structure thought (as in analyses following Foucault, Bourdieu, or Gramsci) or where particular ideas are institutionalized at the expense of others by being embedded in the rules or frames (as in historical or sociological institutionalist approaches to ideas).
Selected publications
Books
Democratizing France: The Political and Administrative History of Decentralization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, reissued 2007
Welfare and Work in the Open Economy 2 vols. (co-edited with Fritz W. Scharpf). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000
The Futures of European Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. (356pp). Chinese translation: Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2010
Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. French Translation: La Démocratie en Europe Paris: La Découverte, 2010
Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy, co-edited with Mark Thatcher.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013
Articles
“Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse,” AnnualReview of Political Science vol. 11 (2008): 303–26.
“Putting the Political Back into Political Economy by Bringing the State Back Yet Again.” World Politics vol. 61, no. 3 (2009): 516–548.
“Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth New Institutionalism.” European Political Science Review vol. 2, no. 1 (2010): 1-25
“Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput.” Political Studies vol. 61, no. 1 (2013): 2-22
“Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism.” (with Martin Carstensen) Journal of European Public Policy vol. 23, no. 3 (2016): 318–337.
“Power and Changing Modes of Governance in the Euro Crisis” (with Martin Carstensen). Governance (2017) early view: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12318
Related Research Articles
International relations (IR) are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific study of those interactions is also referred to as international studies, international politics, or international affairs. In a broader sense, the study of IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in international politics. The four most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism, constructivism, and rational choice. Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.
New institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups. New institutionalism traditionally encompasses three major strands: sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. New institutionalism originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.
Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state.
Institutional economics focuses on understanding the role of the evolutionary process and the role of institutions in shaping economic behavior. Its original focus lay in Thorstein Veblen's instinct-oriented dichotomy between technology on the one side and the "ceremonial" sphere of society on the other. Its name and core elements trace back to a 1919 American Economic Review article by Walton H. Hamilton. Institutional economics emphasizes a broader study of institutions and views markets as a result of the complex interaction of these various institutions. The earlier tradition continues today as a leading heterodox approach to economics.
Theda Skocpol is an American sociologist and political scientist, who is currently the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. She is best known as an advocate of the historical-institutional and comparative approaches, as well as her "state autonomy theory". She has written widely for both popular and academic audiences. She has been President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association.
Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.
Susan Strange was a British scholar who was "almost single-handedly responsible for creating international political economy." Notable publications include Sterling and British Policy (1971), Casino Capitalism (1986), States and Markets (1988), The Retreat of the State (1996), and Mad Money (1998).
Institutionalist political economy, also known as institutional political economy or IPE, refers to a body of political economy, thought to stem from the works of institutionalists such as Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, Wesley Mitchell and John Dewey. It emphasizes the impact of historical and socio-political factors on the evolution of economic practices, often opposing more rational approaches. In the political sense, this implies the influences actors like the state have on socio-economic practices and the shaping of institutions via political decision-making.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy. As a policy regime, it is described by two academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.
John S. Dryzek is a Centenary Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.
Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.
Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." Its explanations are constructivist in nature. According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism
treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character.
The "argumentative turn" refers to a group of different approaches in policy analysis and planning that emphasize the increased relevance of argumentation, language and deliberation in policy making. Inspired by the "linguistic turn" in the field of humanities, it was developed as an alternative to the epistemological limitations of "neo-positivist" policy analysis and its underlying technocratic understanding of the decision-making process. The argumentative approach systematically integrates empirical and normative questions into a methodological framework oriented towards the analysis of policy deliberation. It is sensitive to the situative context and the multiple kinds of knowledge practices involved in each stage of the policy process, drawing attention to different forms of argumentation, persuasion and justification.
Mark McGann Blyth is a Scottish-American political economist. He is currently the William R. Rhodes Professor of International Economics and Professor of International and Public Affairs at Brown University. At Brown, Blyth additionally directs the William R. Rhodes Center for International Economics and Finance at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Feminist institutionalism is a new institutionalist approach that looks at how gender norms operate within institutions and how institutional processes construct and maintain gender power dynamics. Feminist institutionalism focuses on how institutions are gendered and how their formal and informal rules play a part in shaping political life. It offers a new way of interpreting the formation of institutions that goes beyond traditional views by accounting for the gendered stigma and gendered outcomes that comes with institutions. As a result, feminist institutionalism is changing the face of various institutions by providing awareness into their very own dynamics of inclusion and exclusion.
Kathleen Thelen is an American political scientist specializing in comparative politics. She is the Ford Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a permanent external member of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), and a faculty associate at the Center for European Studies (CES) at Harvard University.
Techno-populism is either a populism in favor of technocracy or a populism concerning certain technology – usually information technology – or any populist ideology conversed using digital media. It can be employed by single politicians or whole political movements respectively. Neighboring terms used in a similar way are technocratic populism, technological populism and cyber-populism. Italy’s Five Star Movement and France’s La République En Marche! have been described as technopopulist political movements.
Critical juncture theory focuses on critical junctures, i.e., large, rapid, discontinuous changes, and the long-term causal effect or historical legacy of these changes. Critical junctures are turning points that alter the course of evolution of some entity. Critical juncture theory seeks to explain both (1) the historical origin and maintenance of social order, and (2) the occurrence of social change through sudden, big leaps.
References
↑ Campbell, John L., and Ove K. Pedersen. The national origins of policy ideas: Knowledge regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton University Press, 2014. p. 2
↑ Scharpf, Fritz W.; Schmidt, Vivien A. (2000). Scharpf, Fritz W; Schmidt, Vivien A (eds.). Welfare and Work in the Open Economy Volume I: From Vulnerability to Competitiveness in Comparative Perspective. doi:10.1093/0199240884.001.0001. ISBN9780199240883.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
