IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v38y2021i1p177-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical realism and complexity theory: Building a nonconstructivist systems research framework for effective governance analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Yang

Abstract

Complexity theory (CT) intends to reveal public management's unpredictable side but its empirical applications are scarce due to prevailing constructivist approaches that collapse larger systematic outcomes into micro agent actions and conflate them into movements of co‐constitution and co‐evolution, precluding effective analysis. How can we capture emergent properties and outcomes if we cannot delineate objects and subjects? How can we attribute causes and effects without fixed, stable entities? To address this significant weakness of theorization for a more effective CT framework, Margaret Archer's critical realist model solves this constructivist conflation dilemma—agents and systems, though interrelated, are distinct and stable entities—public management and governance process is thus the result of emergence from a learning‐to‐control process for rule‐makers, with structurally unpredictable inputs from the ruled whereby systematic features predate and condition (Time 1) individual actions, which can maintain or reproduce them (Time 3) during agent–system interactive processes (Time 2).

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Yang, 2021. "Critical realism and complexity theory: Building a nonconstructivist systems research framework for effective governance analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 177-183, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:177-183
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2662
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2662?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Cairney, 2012. "Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 10(3), pages 346-358, September.
    2. Elizabeth Anne Eppel & Mary Lee Rhodes, 2018. "Complexity theory and public management: a ‘becoming’ field," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 949-959, July.
    3. Mahoney, James & Goertz, Gary, 2006. "A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 227-249, July.
    4. Boulton, Jean G. & Allen, Peter M. & Bowman, Cliff, 2015. "Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199565269.
    5. Elizabeth Eppel, 2017. "Complexity thinking in public administration’s theories-in-use," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 845-861, July.
    6. Adrian Little, 2012. "Political Action, Error and Failure: The Epistemological Limits of Complexity," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(1), pages 3-19, March.
    7. Erik-Hans Klijn, 2008. "Complexity Theory and Public Administration: What's New?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 299-317, May.
    8. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 699-719, December.
    9. Geert R. Teisman & Erik-Hans Klijn, 2008. "Complexity Theory and Public Management," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 287-297, May.
    10. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 699-719, December.
    11. Robert Macintosh & Donald Maclean, 1999. "Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 297-316, April.
    12. Philip Haynes, 2008. "Complexity Theory and Evaluation in Public Management," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 401-419, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2022. "The Value of Systems Thinking for and in Regulatory Governance: An Evidence Synthesis," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    2. Crabolu, Gloria & Font, Xavier & Eker, Sibel, 2023. "Evaluating policy complexity with Causal Loop Diagrams," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Giovanni Esposito & Andrea Terlizzi, 2023. "Governing wickedness in megaprojects: discursive and institutional perspectives," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 131-147.
    4. Chao Yang & Xianyin Meng, 2023. "A Fuzzy-Set Configurational Examination of Governance Capability under Certainty and Uncertainty Conditions: Evidence from the Chinese Provincial Cases of Early COVID-19 Containing Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    6. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    7. Paul Cairney & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 619-627, December.
    8. Paul Cairney, 2015. "Debate: What is complex government and what can we do about it?," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 3-6, January.
    9. Crabolu, Gloria & Font, Xavier & Eker, Sibel, 2023. "Evaluating Policy Instrument Complexity With Causal Loop Diagrams," SocArXiv 2c83b, Center for Open Science.
    10. Evert Waeterloos, 2021. "Introducing Collaborative Governance in Decentralized Land Administration and Management in South Africa: District Land Reform Committees Viewed through a ‘System of Innovation’ Lens," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    12. Rapuano Violeta & Valickas Andrius, 2021. "Application of Complexity Theory to Organizational Career Management System’s Development," Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Sciendo, vol. 85(1), pages 47-64, June.
    13. Pečarič Mirko, 2020. "Regulatory Cybernetics: Adaptability and Probability in the Public Administration’s Regulations," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 133-156, June.
    14. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    15. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    16. Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi & Shona Hilton & Chris Bonell & Lyndal Bond, 2014. "Understanding the Development of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of the Policy Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.
    17. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Engebretsen, Eivind, 2022. "The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    19. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    20. Deas, L. & Mattu, L. & Gnich, W., 2013. "Intelligent policy making? Key actors' perspectives on the development and implementation of an early years' initiative in Scotland's public health arena," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:177-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.