The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis
Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto became a sensation in 2009 because it promised that a simple technique could powerfully discipline decision-making. Gawande had saved lives using hospital checklists, and he argued that checklists could improve outcomes in other complicated endeavors. Checklis...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | AJIL Unbound |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398772318000673/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1811157436462006272 |
|---|---|
| author | Sadie Blanchard |
| author_facet | Sadie Blanchard |
| author_sort | Sadie Blanchard |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto became a sensation in 2009 because it promised that a simple technique could powerfully discipline decision-making. Gawande had saved lives using hospital checklists, and he argued that checklists could improve outcomes in other complicated endeavors. Checklists, he explained, “provide a kind of cognitive net. They catch mental flaws.” Neil Komesar's method of comparative institutional analysis is by necessity messier than the checklist and does not claim to produce faultless policy-making. But Komesar similarly seeks to improve cognitive processing by imposing a disciplining framework on decision-making. Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer's effort to introduce Komesar's technique to the debate about foreign investment law reform is welcome. Their emphasis on tradeoffs among institutional alternatives helps us to appreciate the different contexts facing different nation states, the value of regime competition, and consequently, the importance of implementing reforms in ways that preserve a variety of options for states. If they persuade commentators and policy-makers to take stock of the tradeoffs among institutional alternatives, Puig and Shaffer will have made a meaningful contribution. Still, their analysis illustrates some of the weaknesses of comparative institutional analysis. In this essay, I identify those weaknesses and suggest that they also weigh in pluralism's favor. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T05:06:21Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b68f0f30384b4e84a895d821dbfda082 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2398-7723 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T05:06:21Z |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | AJIL Unbound |
| spelling | doaj.art-b68f0f30384b4e84a895d821dbfda0822023-03-09T12:27:07ZengCambridge University PressAJIL Unbound2398-77232018-01-0111225526010.1017/aju.2018.67The Limitations of Comparative Institutional AnalysisSadie Blanchard0Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School.Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto became a sensation in 2009 because it promised that a simple technique could powerfully discipline decision-making. Gawande had saved lives using hospital checklists, and he argued that checklists could improve outcomes in other complicated endeavors. Checklists, he explained, “provide a kind of cognitive net. They catch mental flaws.” Neil Komesar's method of comparative institutional analysis is by necessity messier than the checklist and does not claim to produce faultless policy-making. But Komesar similarly seeks to improve cognitive processing by imposing a disciplining framework on decision-making. Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer's effort to introduce Komesar's technique to the debate about foreign investment law reform is welcome. Their emphasis on tradeoffs among institutional alternatives helps us to appreciate the different contexts facing different nation states, the value of regime competition, and consequently, the importance of implementing reforms in ways that preserve a variety of options for states. If they persuade commentators and policy-makers to take stock of the tradeoffs among institutional alternatives, Puig and Shaffer will have made a meaningful contribution. Still, their analysis illustrates some of the weaknesses of comparative institutional analysis. In this essay, I identify those weaknesses and suggest that they also weigh in pluralism's favor.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398772318000673/type/journal_article |
| spellingShingle | Sadie Blanchard The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis AJIL Unbound |
| title | The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis |
| title_full | The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis |
| title_fullStr | The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis |
| title_short | The Limitations of Comparative Institutional Analysis |
| title_sort | limitations of comparative institutional analysis |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398772318000673/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sadieblanchard thelimitationsofcomparativeinstitutionalanalysis AT sadieblanchard limitationsofcomparativeinstitutionalanalysis |