The Socialization of Governance and Its Role in Enhancing National Authorit

Pedram, Abdurrahim

doi:10.22034/jmi.2025.535953.3220

The Socialization of Governance and Its Role in Enhancing National Authorit

Document Type : Research Article (Original Article)

Author

Abdurrahim Pedram

Associate Professor, Futures Studies, Supreme University of National Defense

10.22034/jmi.2025.535953.3220

Abstract

In the contemporary world, the transformation of governance is not solely dependent on institutional, legal, or executive tools, but is deeply linked to the internalization of values and norms of governance within society. The concept referred to in the literature as “governance socialization” implies that governance must not only exercise authority or regulate policies but also embed its values, rules, and goals in the minds and behaviors of citizens.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, national authority depends not only on hard power but also on social capital, public trust, and the internalization of revolutionary and religious values. However, existing studies have predominantly analyzed national authority in terms of security power or international capacity, while largely overlooking the role of governance socialization. Therefore, the central question of this study is how to derive a native model—grounded in the Islamic Republic’s value framework—for enhancing national authority through governance socialization.
Using a qualitative approach and the method of conceptual analysis, this study integrates Western theories of accountability, trust, and interactive governance with the ideological foundations of the Islamic Revolution. It seeks to present a conceptual model for strengthening the social bond between the people and the political system. The findings suggest that governance socialization is a prerequisite for establishing transcendent governance and a necessary condition for sustainable national authority.

Keywords

Governance socialization

national authority

legitimacy

value internalization

intermediary networks

Subjects

Industrial Policy

ساروخانی، ب. (۱۳۹۰). جامعه‌شناسی ارتباطات. تهران: نشر سروش.

عابدی‌درچه، س. (۱۴۰۰). مردم‌پایه‌سازی در حکمرانی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. فصلنامه حکمرانی متعالی، ۲(۴)، ۵۱–۷۴.

ریور، ک. (۱۳۹۶). انسان‌شناسی سیاسی (ترجمه فکوهی، ن.). تهران: نشر نی.

موسوی خلخالی، م.، موسوی، ه.، و شجاعی‌فر، ک. (۱۳۹۸). حلقه‌های میانی و مردم‌پایه‌سازی در بیانیه گام دوم انقلاب. پژوهش‌نامه انقلاب اسلامی، ۶(۴)، ۷۹–۱۰۲.

نقیب‌زاده، ع. (۱۳۸۸). فرهنگ سیاسی در ایران. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

Cordes, J., Minnaar, R., & Vosselman, E. (2022). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Journal of Management and Governance, 26(2), 445–471.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 1–21.

Evans, P. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is Governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.

Gilley, B. (2009). The right to rule: How states win and lose legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Goertz, G. (2020). Social Science Concepts and Measurement. Princeton University Press.

Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human Relations, 54(12), 1547–1572.

Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Kennedy School.

Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management.

Zahir-ul-Hassan, M., Minnaar, R. A., & Vosselman, E. (2016). Accountability and trust: Accounting in religious organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 32(2), 171–193.

Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press.

Barney, J., & Hesterly, W. (2019). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. Pearson.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development.

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Lundvall, B. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.