Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Law and Development Review

Editor-in-Chief: Lee, Y.S.


Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.116

Online
ISSN
1943-3867
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Leadership, Law and Development

Jamie Baxter
  • Corresponding author
  • Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, 6061 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H4R2, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-09-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2018-0046

Abstract

This article critically examines the role of political leadership in shaping and sustaining institutional reforms. While leadership has recently attracted a great deal of attention from other social scientists, law and development scholars have only begun to seriously consider the influence of leaders on institutions and development outcomes. The article explores the new mantra that “leadership matters” as cause for both careful optimism and renewed attention to some deeper anxieties about the future directions of law and development. On one side, emerging models of leadership provide important insights about how to change dysfunctional institutions and how to sustain those changes over the long run. A number of major studies published in the last few years have made some version of the claim that successful reforms inevitably require the dedicated leadership of one or more prominent individuals, positing good leaders as a necessary condition for institutional transitions. But the argument that good leadership itself determines good institutions also risks reproducing one of the most obstinate dilemmas in modern social theory: the contest between “structure” and “agency” as causal explanations of social change. If the new mantra that “leadership matters” represents a shift in focus away from the structure of law and politics and towards the influence of individual agents’ choices, actions, talents and beliefs, there is good reason to be sceptical about whether simply privileging agency over structure—or the inverse—has any greater chance of success than the many failed attempts to do just that in other fields of knowledge over the past several decades. Instead, the present moment could be a valuable opportunity to assess whether alternative and more integrative approaches to the longstanding structure-agency impasse in development law and policy are possible.

Keywords: Leadership; institutional change; structure and agency

References

  • Acemoglu, D., and M.O. Jackson, History, Expectations, and Leadership in the Evolution of Social Norms, 82 The Review of Economic Studies, no. 2 (2014).Google Scholar

  • Ahlquist, J., and M. Levi, Leadership: What It Means, What It Does, and What We Want to Know about It, 14 Annual Review of Political Science (2011).Google Scholar

  • Ahlquist, J. and M. Levi, In the Interest of Others: Organizations and Social Activism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

  • Alchian, A.A., and H. Demsetz, Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization, 62 The American Economic Review, no. 5 (1972).Google Scholar

  • Aligică, P.D., Institutional Diversity and Political Economy: The Ostroms and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

  • Alston, L.J., Beyond Institutions: Beliefs and Leadership, 77 The Journal of Economic History, no. 2 (2017).Google Scholar

  • Alston, L.J., M.A. Melo, B. Mueller, and C. Pereira, Brazil in Transition: Beliefs, Leadership, and Institutional Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

  • Archer, M.S., Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining Structure and Action, 33 The British Journal of Sociology, no. 4 (1982).Google Scholar

  • Arrow, K.J., Social Choice and Individual Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951).Google Scholar

  • Bennister, M., New Approaches to Political Leadership, 4 Politics and Governance, no. 2 (2016).Google Scholar

  • Bennister M., B. Worthy, and P. t’Hart, The Leadership Capital Index: A New Perspective on Political Leadership (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Bernstein, H., Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development, 7 The Journal of Development Studies, no. 2 (2007).Google Scholar

  • Besley, T., J.G. Montalvo, and M. Reynal-Querol, Do Educated Leaders Matter?, 121 The Economic Journal, no. 554 (2011).Google Scholar

  • Besley, T., T. Persson, and M. Reynal-Querol, Resilient Leaders and Institutional Reform: Theory and Evidence, 83 Economica, no. 332 (2016).Google Scholar

  • Bidner, C., and P. Francois, The Emergence of Political Accountability, 128 The Quarterly Journal of Economics, no. 3 (2013).Google Scholar

  • Bubb, R., The Evolution of Property Rights: State Law or Informal Norms?, 56 Journal of Law and Economics, no. 3 (2013).Google Scholar

  • Bulman, D.J., Incentivized Development in China: Leaders, Governance, and Growth in China’s Counties (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

  • Coase, R.H., The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica, no. 16 (1937).Google Scholar

  • Davis, K., and M. Trebilcock, The Relationship between Law and Development: Optimists versus Skeptics, 56 American Journal of Comparative Law, no. 4 (2008).Google Scholar

  • Delacroix, J., and C. Ragin, Modernizing Institutions, Mobilization, and Third World Development: A Cross-National Study, 84 American Journal of Sociology, no. 1 (1978).Google Scholar

  • Devarajan, S., and S. Khemani, If Politics Is the Problem, How Can External Actors Be Part of the Solution? (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2016).Google Scholar

  • Elgie, R., Studying Political Leadership: Foundations and Contending Accounts (New York: Springer, 2016).Google Scholar

  • Ensminger, J., and J. Knight, Changing Social Norms: Common Property, Bridewealth, and Clan Exogamy, 38 Current Anthropology, no. 1 (1997).Google Scholar

  • Faustino, J., and D. Booth, Development Entrepreneurship: How Donors and Leaders Can Foster Institutional Change, Working Politically in Practice Series: Case Study No. 2 (2014).Google Scholar

  • Fine, B., “Neither Washington nor Post-Washington Consensus: Challenging Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century”, in B. Fine, C. Lapavitsas, and J. Pincus (eds.), Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century (London: Routledge, 2001).Google Scholar

  • Fitzpatrick, D., Evolution and Chaos in Property Right Systems: The Third World Tragedy of Contested Access, 115 Yale Legal Journal (2005).Google Scholar

  • Fitzpatrick, D., and A. McWilliam, Bright-Line Fever: Simple Legal Rules and Complex Property Customs among the Fataluku of East Timor, 47 Law and Society Review, no. 2 (2013).Google Scholar

  • Garikipati, S., and W. Olsen, The Role of Agency in Development Planning and the Development Process: Introduction to the Special Issue on Agency and Development, 30 International Development Planning Review, no. 4 (2008).Google Scholar

  • Garud, R., C. Hardy, and S. Maguire, Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue, 28 Organization Studies, no. 7 (2007).Google Scholar

  • Giddens, A., Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar

  • Hall, P.A., and R.C.R. Taylor, Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, 44 Political Studies, no. 5 (1996).Google Scholar

  • Hay, C., and D. Wincott, Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism, 46 Political Studies, no. 5 (1998).Google Scholar

  • Hayo, B., and F. Neumeier, Political Leaders’ Socioeconomic Background and Fiscal Performance in Germany, 34 European Journal of Political Economy (2014).Google Scholar

  • Helms, L., “Institutional Analysis”, in The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

  • Hermalin, B.E., “Leadership and Corporate Culture”, in Handbook of Organizational Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

  • Higgott, R., From Modernization Theory to Public Policy: Continuity and Change in Political Science of Political Development, 15 Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 4 (1980).Google Scholar

  • Hodgson, G., The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism (London: Routledge, 2004).Google Scholar

  • Holmstrom, B., Moral Hazard in Teams, 13 The Bell Journal of Economics, no. 2 (1982).Google Scholar

  • Huntington, S.P., The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics, 3 Comparative Politics, no. 3 (1971).Google Scholar

  • Jones, B.F., and B.A. Olken, Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth since World War II, 120 The Quarterly Journal of Economics, no. 3 (2005).Google Scholar

  • Komai, M., M. Stegeman, and B.E. Hermalin, Leadership and Information, 97 The American Economic Review, no. 3 (2007).Google Scholar

  • Lawrence, T., R. Suddaby, and B. Leca, Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization, 20 Journal of Management Inquiry, no. 1 (2010).Google Scholar

  • Leftwich, A., Bringing Politics Back In: Towards a Model of the Developmental State, 31 Journal of Development Studies, no. 3 (1995).Google Scholar

  • Leftwich, A., Bringing Agency Back, 6 Politics and Human Agency in Building Institutions and States. Synthesis and Overview Report of Phase One of the Leaders, Elites and Coalitions Research Programme, Research Paper (2009).Google Scholar

  • Leftwich, A., Beyond Institutions: Rethinking the Role of Leaders, Elites and Coalitions in the Institutional Formation of Developmental States and Strategies, 37 Forum for Development Studies, no. 1 (2010).Google Scholar

  • Levi, M., Why We Need a New Theory of Government, 4 Perspectives on Politics, no. 1 (2006).Google Scholar

  • Levi, M., and B. Epperly, “Principled Principals in the Founding Moments of the Rule of Law”, in Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law (2010).Google Scholar

  • López, E., and W. Leighton, Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers: The Economic Engine of Political Change (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

  • Mahoney, J., and R. Snyder, Rethinking Agency and Structure in the Study of Regime Change, 34 Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 2 (1999).Google Scholar

  • Manzo, K., Modernist Discourse and the Crisis of Development Theory, 26 Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 2 (1991).Google Scholar

  • Marsh, D., and G. Stoker, Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).Google Scholar

  • McClelland, D., The Achieving Society (New York: The Free Press, 1961).Google Scholar

  • Mehta, P.B., and M. Walton, Ideas, Interests and the Politics of Development Change in India: Capitalism, Inclusion and the State, ESID Working Paper No. 36 (2014).Google Scholar

  • Naudé, W., “Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: Theory, Evidence and Policy”, Bruce Currie-Alder, Ravi Kanbur, David M. Malone, and Rohinton Medhora (ed.), International Development: Ideas, Experience, and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

  • North, D.C., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

  • North, D.C., Understanding the Process of Economic Change (Princeton: Princeton Academic Press, 2005).Google Scholar

  • Önis, Z., and F. Senses, Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus, 36 Development and Change, no. 2 (2005).Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E., An Agenda for the Study of Institutions, 48 Public Choice, no. 1 (1986).Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E., Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E., Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems, 100 American Economic Review (2010).Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E., Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, 39 Policy Studies Journal, no. 1 (2011).Google Scholar

  • Peet, R., and E. Hartwick, Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives (New York: Guilford Publications, 2015).Google Scholar

  • Persson, A., and M. Sjöstedt, Responsive and Responsible Leaders: A Matter of Political Will?, 10 Perspectives on Politics, no. 3 (2012).Google Scholar

  • Portes, A., Modernity and Development: A Critique, 8 Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), no. 3 (1973).Google Scholar

  • Prado, M., and M. Trebilcock, Path Dependence, Development, and the Dynamics of Institutional Reform, 59 University of Toronto Law Journal, no. 3 (2009).Google Scholar

  • Prado, M.M., and A.C. Da Matta Chasin, How Innovative Was the Poupatempo Experience in Brazil? Institutional Bypass as a New Form of Institutional Change, 5 Brazilian Political Science Review, no. 1 (2011).Google Scholar

  • Putzel, L., A.B. Kelly, P.O. Cerutti, and Y. Artati, Formalization as Development in Land and Natural Resource Policy, Society and Natural Resources (2015).Google Scholar

  • Riker, W.H., The Art of Political Manipulation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

  • Riker, W.H., The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the Ratification of the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

  • Ritchie, H.A., Unwrapping Institutional Change in Fragile Settings: Women Entrepreneurs Driving Institutional Pathways in Afghanistan, 83 World Development (2016).Google Scholar

  • Rixen, T., and L.A. Viola, Putting Path Dependence in Its Place: Toward a Taxonomy of Institutional Change, 27 Journal of Theoretical Politics, no. 2 (2015).Google Scholar

  • Rodrik, D., When Ideas Trump Interests: Preferences, Worldviews, and Policy Innovations, 28 Journal of Economic Perspectives, no. 1 (2014).Google Scholar

  • Roland, G., Understanding Institutional Change: Fast Moving and Slow-Moving Institutions, 38 Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 4 (2004).Google Scholar

  • Rostow, W.W., The Stages of Economic Growth, 12 The Economic History Review, no. 1 (1959).Google Scholar

  • Rotberg, R., The Corruption Cure: How Citizens and Leaders Can Combat Graft (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Samuels, R.J., Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, V.A., Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse, 11 Political Science, no. 1 (2008).Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, V.A., Speaking of Change: Why Discourse Is Key to the Dynamics of Policy Transformation, 5 Critical Policy Studies, no. 2 (2011).Google Scholar

  • Schofield, N., Architects of Political Change: Constitutional Quandaries and Social Choice Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

  • Simon, H.A., Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1982).Google Scholar

  • Simon, H.A., Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow, 1 Mind & Society, no. 1 (2000).Google Scholar

  • Smith, T., The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory, 31 World Politics, no. 2 (1979).Google Scholar

  • Stubbs, R., What Ever Happened to the East Asian Developmental State? The Unfolding Debate, 22 The Pacific Review, no. 1 (2009).Google Scholar

  • Trebilcock, M.J., Between Universalism and Relativism: Reflections on the Evolution of Law and Development Studies, 66 University of Toronto Law Journal, no. 3 (2016).Google Scholar

  • Trebilcock, M.J., and M.M. Prado, What Makes Poor Countries Poor?: Institutional Determinants of Development (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011).Google Scholar

  • Trubek, D.M., Law and Development: Forty Years after Scholars in Self-Estrangement, 66 University of Toronto Law Journal, no. 3 (2016).Google Scholar

  • Trubek, D.M., and M. Galanter, Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States, 1974 Wisconsin Law Review (1974).Google Scholar

  • Upham, F.K., The Paradoxical Roles of Property Rights in Growth and Development, 8 Law and Development Review, no. 2 (2015).Google Scholar

  • The World Bank, Putting Leadership at the Center of Development: The Collaborative Leadership for Development Approach (Washington: The World Bank Group, 2016).Google Scholar

  • Wrenn, M.V., Agency and Neoliberalism, 39 Cambridge Journal of Economics, no. 5 (2014).Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-09-06

Published in Print: 2019-01-28


Citation Information: Law and Development Review, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 119–158, ISSN (Online) 1943-3867, ISSN (Print) 2194-6523, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2018-0046.

Export Citation

© 2019 Law and Development Review.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in