Izaberi jezik:
Tema broja

IZ POLITIČKE TEORIJE

BOSANSKOHERCEGOVAČKI FEDERALIZAM UNUTAR PARADIGME ISTORIJSKOG INSTITUCIONALIZMA

Sažetak

Autor u radu objašnjava nastanak, karakter, i razvoj bosanskohercegovačkog federalizma unutar teorijsko-epistemološke paradigme istorijskog institucionalizma. Koristeći fokalne teorijsko-metodološke elemente istorijskog institucionalizma – analiza kritičnog raskršća i putne zavisnosti – autor ima za cilj da institucionalnom argumentacijom objasni trajnost i stabilnost bosanskohercegovačkog federalizma uprkos promjenljivim strukturalnim okolnostima. Donošenje Dejtonskog mirovnog sporazuma 1995. godine koji je, između ostalog, uredio Bosnu i Hercegovinu prema federalnom principu, predstavlja kritično raskršće nakon kojeg je federalni aranžman nastavio da se reprodukuje autonomno od kontingentnih društvenih okolnosti. Nakon trasiranja federalnog institucionalnog puta, putna zavisnost je dodatno stabilizovala federalno uređenje i otežala različitim političkim akterima mogućnost njegove promjene.

Ključne reči:

Reference

    1. Anderson, Liam, „Ethnofederalism – The Worst Form of Institutional arrangement…?“, International Security, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014.
    2. Bieber, Florian, Post-War Bosnia: Ethnicity, Inequality and Public Sector Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2006.
    3. Capoccia, Giovanni., Kelemen, Daniel R., „The Study od Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism“, World Politics, Vol. 59, Iss 3, 2007.
    4. Hague, Rod., Harrop, Martin, Comprative Government and Politics – An Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2004.
    5. Hall, Peter A., Taylor, Rosemary C. R., „Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, Vol. 44, 1996.
    6. Касаповић, Мирјана, Босна и Херцеговина: подијељено друштво и нестабилна држава, Политичка култура, Загреб, 2005.
    7. Keil, Soeren, Multinational Federalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Southeast European Studies, Ashgate Publishing, 2013.
    8. Krasner, Stephen, „Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics“, Comparative Politics, Vol. 16, 1984.
    9. Lieberman, Robert C., „Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2002.
    10. Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Societies, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1977.
    11. Mahoney, James, „Path Dependence in Historical Sociology“, Theory and Society, Vol. 29, 2000.
    12. Parsons, Craig, How to Map Arguments in Political Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
    13. Pierson, Paul, „Increasing Returns, Path Dependece, and the Study of Politics“, American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, 2000.
    14. Pierson, Paul, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004.
    15. Riker, William H., „Federalism“, in: F. I. Greenstein, N. W. Polsby (eds.): The Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 5, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
    16. Roeder, Philip G., „Ethnofederalism and the Mismanagement of Conflicting Nationalisms“, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2009.
    17. Stepan, Alfred, „Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S Model“, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1999.
    18. Thelen, Kathleen, „How Institutions Evolve: “Insights From Comparative Historical Analysis“, in: James Mahoney, Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.): Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
    19. Устав Босне и Херцеговине, Сарајево, OHR, Office of the High Representative, http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=372&lang=sr
PERIODIKA Politička revija 2/2016 УДК 342.24(497.6) 1-18
ç