The twenty-first-century mind deeply distrusts the authority of institutions. It has taken several centuries for advocates of critical thinking to convince western culture that to be rational, liberated, authentic, and modern means to be anti-institutional. In this mold-breaking book, Hugh Heclo moves beyond the abstract academic realm of thinking about institutions to the more personal significance and larger social meaning of what it is to think institutionally. His account ranges from Michael Jordan's respect for the game of basketball to Greek philosophy, from twenty-first-century corporate and political scandals to Christian theology and the concept of office and professionalism. Think what you will about one institution or another, but after Heclo, no reader will be left in doubt about why it matters to think institutionally.

Do institutions think? If so, how do they do it? Do they have minds of their own? If so, what thoughts occupy these suprapersonal minds? Mary Douglas delves into these questions as she lays the groundwork for a theory of institutions. Usually the human reasoning process is explained with a focus on the individual mind; her focus is on culture. Using the works of Emile Durkheim and Ludwik Fleck as a foundation, How Institutions Think intends to clarify the extent to which thinking itself is dependent upon institutions. Different kinds of institutions allow individuals to think different kinds of thoughts and to respond to different emotions. It is just as difficult to explain how individuals come to share the categories of their thought as to explain how they ever manage to sink their private interests for a common good. Douglas forewarns us that institutions do not think independently, nor do they have purposes, nor can they build themselves. As we construct our institutions, we are squeezing each other's ideas into a common shape in order to prove their legitimacy by sheer numbers. She admonishes us not to take comfort in the thought that primitives may think through institutions, but moderns decide on important issues individually. Our legitimated institutions make major decisions, and these decisions always involve ethical principles.

Media, Development, and Institutional Change investigates mass media s profound ability to affect institutional change and economic development. The authors use the tools of economics to illuminate the media s role in enabling and inhibiting political economic reforms that promote development. The book explores how media can constrain government, how governments manipulate media to entrench their power, and how private and public media ownership affects a country s ability to prosper. The authors identify specific media-related policies governments of underdeveloped countries should adopt if they want to grow. They illustrate why media freedom is a critical ingredient in the recipe of economic development and why even the best-intentioned state involvement in media is more likely to slow prosperity than to enhance it. Scholars and students of economics, political science and sociology; policy-makers, analysts and others in the development community; and academics in media studies will find this book insightful and provocative.

This book has much to commend it, because of the richness and diversity of the issues addressed. Indira Rajaraman, Tax Justice Focus The volume offers substantial insights into the nature of institutional competition, focusing mostly on governmental institutions, and shows the many subtleties in understanding and analyzing the role of institutions. Institutional competition is a small subset of institutional analysis, but an important one, and while the volume does cover the more familiar tax and expenditure topics, it also delves more deeply into the subject. Randall G. Holcombe, Public Choice While economists typically praise the merits of competition among market-based enterprises, they are not so sure when it comes to competition among institutions, especially governments. I am aware of no better source for thoughtful reflection on competition among institutions than the ten essays presented in this book. Richard E. Wagner, George Mason University, US Why is competition between institutions usually viewed in a negative light, when competition is considered positive in most other economic contexts? The contributors to this volume introduce new perspectives on this issue, analytically and empirically exploring reasons for this perception. Negative assessments of institutional competition emphasize that such competition may lead to a race to the bottom in terms of eroding government revenues, redistributing wealth from workers to capitalists, and limiting democracy by forcing politicians to prioritize international investment capital rather than working for their voters. In this volume, however, many of the essays draw attention to the positive learning and information effects. The contributors conclude that competition may actually lead to institutions becoming more efficient in allocating resources. Students and scholars of economics, political economy, international relations and political science will find the book s non-traditional take on institutional competition a must-read, as will policy analysts and those with an interest in taxation and welfare states.

As polarized factions in society pull apart from economic dislocation, tribalism, and fear, and as strident attacks on the press make its survival more precarious, the need for an institutionally organized forum in civic life has become increasingly important. Populist challenges amplified by a counter-institutional media system have contributed to the long-term decline in journalistic authority, exploiting a post-truth mentality that strikes at its very core. In this timely book, Stephen Reese considers these threats through a new conception of the ‘hybrid institution’: an idea that extends beyond the traditional newsroom, and distributes across multiple platforms, national boundaries, and social actors. What is it about the institutional press that we value, and around what normative standards could a hybrid institution emerge? Addressing these questions, Reese highlights how this is no time to be passive but rather to articulate and defend greater aspirations. The institutional press matters more than ever: a reality that must be communicated to a public that depends on it. The Crisis of the Institutional Press is an essential resource for students and scholars of journalism, media and communication.

Over the past half-century, think tanks have become fixtures of American politics, supplying advice to presidents and policy makers, expert testimony on Capitol Hill, and convenient facts and figures to journalists and media specialists. But what are think tanks? Who funds them? What kind of “research” do they produce? Where does their authority come from? And how influential have they become? In Think Tanks in America, Thomas Medvetz argues that the unsettling ambiguity of the think tank is less an accidental feature of its existence than the very key to its impact. By combining elements of more established sources of public knowledge—universities, government agencies, businesses, and the media—think tanks exert a tremendous amount of influence on the way citizens and lawmakers perceive the world, unbound by the more clearly defined roles of those other institutions. In the process, they transform the government of this country, the press, and the political role of intellectuals. Timely, succinct, and instructive, this provocative book will force us to rethink our understanding of the drivers of political debate in the United States.

A leading conservative intellectual argues that to renew America we must recommit to our institutions Americans are living through a social crisis. Our politics is polarized and bitterly divided. Culture wars rage on campus, in the media, social media, and other arenas of our common life. And for too many Americans, alienation can descend into despair, weakening families and communities and even driving an explosion of opioid abuse. Left and right alike have responded with populist anger at our institutions, and use only metaphors of destruction to describe the path forward: cleaning house, draining swamps. But, as Yuval Levin argues, this is a misguided prescription, rooted in a defective diagnosis. The social crisis we confront is defined not by an oppressive presence but by a debilitating absence of the forces that unite us and militate against alienation. As Levin argues, now is not a time to tear down, but rather to build and rebuild by committing ourselves to the institutions around us. From the military to churches, from families to schools, these institutions provide the forms and structures we need to be free. By taking concrete steps to help them be more trustworthy, we can renew the ties that bind Americans to one another.