Institutional System And Country Development:Fractured And Synsustainable Country Types Of Argentina And Chile

This thesis aims to study the relationship between institutional system and country development. Because both of them have various types, this thesis, more precisely, seeks to respond to the following question:What is the relationship between which institutional system and which country development?An institutional system is the system composed all institutions of a country, whereas the country development refers to the system of all developmental fields including political, military, economic, scientific and technological, environmental and cultural development, etc. Since the two systems are in discussion together, we could establish comprehensive theoretical framework. However, it is the most complicated topic, and till now no one would like to trespass on it because they might fail without a feasible solution.Whether the effort of this thesis can be successful relies on whether we could open the both black boxes of the two systems. Traditional systemic theory cannot provide a satisfactory method, though the classical theory of concept and category and the anti-classical one can be enlightening:we could make parts represent wholes if we adhere to the necessary and sufficient condition and further stress on hierarchy distinctions among various category members. Via comparison, simplification, and synthesis, this thesis, in the context of the post Second World War, chooses three developmental fields--politics, economy and social welfare-- to represent the country development, and accordingly takes institutions of these fields to represent the institutional system. Therefore, these two black boxes are opened, and both systems involve in a recurrent logic when a feedback is introduced.So far this thesis provides a solid foundation to construct fractured/synsustainable country theory. It claims that among politics, economy, social welfare and other fields, politics is the final field; politics and economy is in the dominance whose discourse is more important than others; each fields interrelated with each other to form institutional system and country development. There are two kinds of institutional systems:fractured and synsustainable, and accordingly country development includes fractured and synsustainable ones. For the relations between institutional system and country development, it concludes that fractured institutional system generates fractured country development, and such country is a fractured country. In the contrary, synsustainable institutional system generates synsustainable country development, and such country is a synsustainable country. All in all, these two sorts of institutional systems, country development, and countries are quite different in structure, process, respond to external shocks, and whole change.My answer to institutional system and country development as well as their relations ends here.Since the two systems--institutional system and country development--are too complicated and there is no large sample test at the beginning of constructing the theory, this thesis analyzes two cases of Argentina and Chile to illustrate it. Between 1976 and 1989, Argentina suffered both in its institutional system and country development and witnessed two dramatic crises. From 1989 to 2001, Argentina once seemed walked out a new route to improve the institutional system and further the country development, but unfortunately, leaving fundamental problems remain and risking the country a second failure. Between 1973 and 1989, Chile suffered a setback, though it was not long, the negative effects were within a controllable range, and the country told a much better story. From 1990 to 2001, Chile took advantage of previous success and new elements of glory, ups its position even greater. According to four characteristics of structure, process, respond to external shocks and whole changes of both countries, this thesis concluded that Argentina is a fractured country and Chile a synsustainable country.The theory about institutional system and country development proves to be novel and synthetic, carries empirical value, has a great potential, and thus merits thorough studies. Here come three topics to be further captured. One is to generalize this theoretical framework. Another is to look for the intermediate state between the fractured and the synsustainable countries. Still another is to construct institutional system theory (including interinstitutionalism) and country development theory.