Reform

Modern societies are highly dynamic. Unlike static traditional societies, they constantly evolve, and [Page 2231]progress is the principal goal. Consequently, a central concept in these societies is that of reform, meaning an intended change of institutions or policies designed to overcome perceived deficits or to achieve particular goals. If successful, the change leads to a positive development: improvement of an existing situation or better performance. Reforms can refer to a government as a whole or its institutions and policies, but political science is also interested in the restructuring of nongovernmental organizations such as associations or firms. In all these settings, modernization is tantamount to reform.

The concept of reform is used to designate extraordinary political decisions, as distinguished from ordinary decisions, by the degree of change involved. Moreover, reforms break with routine. As a rule, political leaders announce a reform to gain public attention and prove their ability to govern. In this way, they exploit the positive connotations of the term for political gain. In view of the dynamics of modern societies and technologies, even conservatives no longer defend the status quo but propose reforms to avoid negative developments. The ability to reform has become an indication of effective governance, while stalemate and stagnation are commonly identified with governance failure. Nevertheless, an analytical distinction between reform and ordinary decisions is difficult. If blockade is used as the antonym for reform, the concept is too broad for analytical purposes, because not all policy change can be construed as reform and not all opposition to such change can be construed as obstructionist. For this reason, reform should be defined as a policy that is particularly ambitious with regard to change, that is highly relevant for the promoters or affected actors, and that attracts special attention, often among the general public and the media.

In contrast to revolutionary change, reform policies maintain a legitimized system of governance. Institutions or policies are not abolished but transformed in a more or less incremental process. This process follows existing rules, which usually stipulate the participation of actors that have a stake in the reform. As a consequence, the intended change causes conflicts, and every reform is confronted with the resistance of actors interested in maintaining the status quo or expecting to lose power. On the other hand, actors who push for change may veto a reform if they are not satisfied with the outcome. For these reasons, the challenge of a reform is to find sufficient supporters and arrive at decisions on change, whereas revolutions generate a self-enforcing dynamic that is difficult to control.

Reform is an intended change effected by explicit decisions and actions of responsible policymakers. Usually, reformers pursue a design of renewed institutions or policies; at least they have ideas about the direction of change. Thus, a reform, concerning the formal institutions, rules, or procedures, differs from changes driven by ongoing interaction or interpretation of existing norms and practices. However, emergent patterns of interaction and interpretation influence the outcome of reforms. In political systems, as in the private sector, reform policies are often guided by designs derived from theories or copied from those of other governments or organizations. But more often than not, these plans fail due to open opposition from actors attempting to maintain their powers or due to the endogenous dynamics of collective action interfering with the intentions of reform policies. It is the interplay of intended and unintended change that explains the outcome of reforms.

...