The Concept of Autogenic Institutional Change in the Light of the Activities of the Constitutional Tribunal

Abstract

Motivation: Theories of institutional change may be divided into three principal groups: (1) evolutionary theories, (2) theories of collective choice, and (3) the autogenic theory of institutional change. The autogenic theory occupies a distinctive position among them. It describes mechanisms of institutional change that differ both from the spontaneity of evolutionary approaches and from the intentionality characteristic of political or group-based choice. The changes that fall within its analytical scope are not random; rather, they are purposeful and oriented toward improving the functioning of the institutional system within a given domain. At the same time, they are independent, since their initiation does not require the involvement of interest groups. In fact, the initiation of change is embedded in the rules governing the functioning of the institutional system itself. This pertains to the system’s protective mechanisms, whose empirical manifestation is the activity of the Constitutional Tribunal. The specificity of the autogenic theory of institutional change, which makes it possible to closely trace the process of institutional transformation, invites reflection on its epistemic capacities, understood here in terms of the adequacy of explanation and the predictive power of economic phenomena based on a given scientific theory.

Aim: The aim of this article is to demonstrate the epistemic capacities of the autogenic theory of institutional change in the study of institutional transformation within the institutional system. This objective will be pursued by seeking an answer to the research question: which factors characteristic of the autogenic theory of institutional change account for its epistemic capacities in explaining institutional changes within the institutional system?

Results: Through the examination of the autogenic theory of institutional change, both in a hypothetico-deductive framework and in an empirical perspective, it has been possible to identify the features that constitute its essential epistemic capacities. These factors are: (1) formalization, (2) hermeticity within the research domain, namely the institutional system, and (3) the interpretability of mechanisms of constitutional review, which are grounded in the activities of the Constitutional Tribunal. The analysis has also revealed the epistemic limitations of the autogenic theory of institutional change, manifested in its ability to explain only a portion of legislative processes. This implies that the theory applies to a relatively small subset of the totality of legal changes.