Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PS Project 2018
PS Project 2018
PROJECT TITLE
Neo Institutionalism
SUBJECT
Political Science
Semester: 1 st year
2
ACKOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
Neo Institutionalism
INTRODUCTION
Neo Institutionalism
RESEARCH QUESTION :
The purpose of the study is that the researcher wants to explore the
concept of neo institutionalism in his research question.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY :
The method which the researcher followed is the doctrinal research and
restricted to the topic.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--6
OLD
INSTITUTIONALISM------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
NEW
INSTITUTIONALISM------------------------------------------------------------------------9
HISTORICAL
INSTITUTIONALISM-------------------------------------------------------------- 11
RATIONAL CHOICE
INSTITUTIONALISM----------------------------------------------------- 14
SOCIOLOGICAL
INSTITUTIONALISM---------------------------------------------------------- 17
APPLICATIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 18
FRONTIERS OF
INSTITUTIONALISM---------------------------------------------------------- 22
CONCLUSION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--25
6
INTRODUCTION
The ‘new institutionalism’ is a term that now appears with growing frequency in political
science. However, there is considerable confusion about just what the ‘new institutionalism’
is, how it differs from other approaches, and what sort of promise or problems it displays.
The object of this essay is to provide some preliminary answers to these questions by
reviewing recent work in a burgeoning literature.
Power and institution are two of the most studied things in political science. Institutions are
important because, as entities, they form such a large part of political landscape. Also,
modern governance largely occurs in and through institutions. Institutions are also said to
matter because they are seen as shaping and constraining political behaviour and decision
making and even the perception and powers in a wide range of ways. In institutional terms,
students of politics have analysed party systems, the rules of electoral competition,
government bureaucracies, parliaments, constitutions, the judicial system, as well as judicial
system etc. There have also been extensive studies of supra-national institutions such as
United Nations, the European union and other institutional regimes that help regulate
economic relations, international or environmental trade etc.
Levi (1990: 409) argues that ‘the most effective institutional arrangements incorporate a
normative system of informal and internalised rules’. North (1990: 36) agrees and argues
that the most significant institutional factors are often informal:
Broadly speaking, institutions are important because they shape or influence the behaviour,
power and policy preferences of political actors. The emphasis here on shaping and
influencing implies that institutional dynamics, whilst often important, do not explain
everything. The preferences and resources of political actors might be drawn from a number
of sources. Institutionalism is a ‘middle-range’ theory because institutions can be thought of
as standing above actors but below wider ‘structural’ forces in politics. In political science,
the level of interest in institutions has, however, varied over time.
Old Institutionalism
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, political science did the obvious. It
commenced by describing and mapping the formal institutions of government and the modern
state, both within specific countries and on a comparative basis. In tandem with
constitutional research by students of law and studies in public administration (a sub-field
within political science), the emphasis in this kind of ‘old’ institutionalism in political science
was on charting the formal-legal and administrative arrangements of government and the
public sector.
From today’s perspective, the old institutionalism displayed little interest in cumulative
theory building (Shepsle 1989: 132; Easton 1971: 77; Eckstein 1979). The main emphasis
was on description, not on explanation or theory building. Studies were also often
constructed on an evaluative framework which attempted to assess how well certain
institutions measured up to democratic norms or the principals of responsible government
(Rhodes 1995).2
1 https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9699/Institutionalism.pdf
2 https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9699/Institutionalism.pdf
9
institutionalists in their explanation of the theory assumed that the political behaviour was
more or less scripted by rules and procedures of the institutional setting.
In the post- World War II era, a major school in political science developed especially in the
United States. This rejected or bought down the focus on institutions and argued instead that
political behaviour and the sources of political power derived primarily through informal
relationships within and beyond the institutions of government. Because of this attention
shifted from the state and formal organisations and institutions towards a more ‘society
centred’ focus. It had an emphasis on the socially embedded nature of pressure group politics,
individual political behaviour and informal distributions of power.
It was argued that the best way of explaining behaviour was not through reading the rule
book but through the direct observation of behaviour itself: hence the term ‘behaviourism’
came into existence. As Shepsle (1989: 133) argues, institutions were assumed to be ‘empty
shells to be filled by individual roles, statuses and values.’ Second, March and Olsen argue
behaviourism was ‘utilitarian’ in that action was seen ‘as the product of calculated self-
interest’ rather than the product of actors ‘responding to obligations and duties’.
New Institutionalism
New institutionalism amounts to ‘bringing institutions back in’ and a revival and expansion
of this approach that has been underway since the 1980s.
In political science, there have been a number of reasons for the renewal of interest in
institutions.
First, ‘social, political and economic institutions have become larger, considerably more
complex and resourceful, and prima facie more important to collective life’ (March and Olsen
1984: 734).
Second, there has been a renewed interest in the ‘state’ in a number of schools of political
analysis, including Marxism and so-called ‘statism’ (Krasner 1984; Skocpol 1985; Bell
1997).
10
Third, institutional factors have figured prominently in explanations of why countries pursued
such different responses to the common economic challenges of the 1970s and 1980s
(especially the oil crisis and rising inflation and unemployment) (Thelen and Steinmo ).
Fourth, the major public policy revisions since the 1970s in the face of such
challenges have also involved wholesale institutional restructuring, impacting especially on
the role of the state and involving substantial public sector reform.3
Institutions, according to Shepsle (1989: 134), ‘are the social glue missing form
the behaviourist’s more atomistic account’, whilst Krasner (1984: 228) writes that: The
political universe is not atomistic. Atoms are bound together in stable molecules and
compounds. The preferences of public officials are constrained by the administrative
apparatus, legal order and enduring beliefs.
It should also be added that institutions provide actors with opportunities as well as
constraints. At bottom, however, and as argued above, institutions are important in providing
actors with sets of behavioural incentives and disincentives, with sets of normative and
ideational codes which shape not only behaviour but also preferences, and with resources,
including power resources.
3 https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9699/Institutionalism.pdf
11
Historical Institutionalism
They found such explanations in the way the institutional organization of the polity and
economy structures conflict so as to privilege some interests while demobilizing others. Here,
they built on an older tradition in political science that assigned importance to formal political
4 Thelen and Steinmo 1992: 10; Hay and Wincott 1997: 955
12
institutions but they developed a more expansive conception both of which institutions matter
and of how they matter.
The historical institutionalists were also influenced by the way in which structural
functionalists saw the polity as an overall system of interacting parts. They accepted this
contention but reacted against the tendency of many structural functionalists to view the
social, psychological or cultural traits of individuals as the parameters driving much of the
system’s operation. Instead, they saw the institutional organization of the polity or political
economy as the principal factor structuring collective behavior and generating distinctive
outcomes. They emphasized the ‘structuralism’ implicit in the institutions of the polity rather
than the ‘functionalism’ of earlier approaches that viewed political outcomes as a response to
the needs of the system.
One of the main arguments is that historical institutionalism is helpful in explaining the
choices of situated subjects in institutional settings. Historical institutionalism’s strength is its
inductive methodology and its willingness to derive working models of rationality and actor
preferences not through abstracted assumptions but through careful empirical observation.
Historical institutionalists agree with rational choice scholars that actors operate in a strategic
manner.5
Historical institutionalists are electic. They use both of these approaches to specify the
relationship between institutions and action. Immergut, for instance, explains cross-national
differences in health care reforms by reference to the willingness of physicians’ groups to
compromise with the advocates of reform, a willingness she links, in turn, to the way in
which the institutional structure of the political system affects these groups’ expectations
about the likelihood of successfully appealing an unpalatable decision beyond the
legislature.6
Hers is a classic calculus approach. Hattam employs a similar approach, when she argues that
the entrenched power of the judiciary led the American labor movement away from strategies
that were susceptible to judicial review. However, like many historical institutionalists, she
goes farther to explore the way in which differences in the institutional setting facing
organized labor in the United States and Britain fostered trade union movements with quite
different worldviews. This kind of analysis suggests that the strategies induced by a given
institutional setting may ossify over time into worldviews, which are propagated by formal
organizations and ultimately shape even the self-images and basic preferences of the actors
involved in them.7
In keeping with this perspective, many historical institutionalists also divide the flow of
historical events into periods of continuity punctuated by ‘critical junctures,’ i.e., moments
when substantial institutional change takes place thereby creating a ‘branching point’ from
which historical development moves onto a new path. The principal problem here, of course,
is to explain what precipitates such critical junctures, and, although historical institutionalists
generally stress the impact of economic crisis and military conflict, many do not have a
welldeveloped response to this question.
Finally, although they draw attention to the role of institutions in political life, historical
institutionalists rarely insist that institutions are the only causal force in politics. They
typically seek to locate institutions in a causal chain that accomodates a role for other factors,
notably socioeconomic development and the diffusion of ideas. In this respect, they posit a
world that is more complex than the world of tastes and institutions often postulated by
rational choice institutionalists. The historical institutionalists have been especially attentive
to the relationship between institutions and ideas or beliefs.
7 Victoria C. Hattam, Labor Visions and State Power: The Origins of Business Unionism in the United States
(Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993)
14
Who comes to a social situation with preferences over possible social states, beliefs about the
world…and a capacity to employ these data intelligently.Agent behaviour takes the form of
choices based on either intelligent calculation or internalised rules that reflect optimal
adaptation to experience.
Initially, rational choice institutionalism arose from the study of American congressional
behaviour. In large measure, it was inspired by the observation of a significant paradox.
15
The emphasis on rational calculation in this approach highlights the view that institutions are
not only an important cause of behaviour but are also an effect of behaviour. Rational choice
writers argue that institutions are constructed by individual actors for rational purposes and
that individual actors engage in changing and shaping institutional environments to suit their
goals. In contrast, historical institutionalists tend to emphasise the ‘embeddedness’ of
institutions and question the rationalist’s assumption that meaningful conceptions of
rationality can be developed a priori, or prior to the analysis of particular forms of rationality
and behaviour in particular institutional settings.
thereby leading actors toward particular calculations and potentially better social outcomes.
We can see that rational choice theorists take a classic ‘calculus approach’ to the problem of
explaining how institutions affect individual action.
A much debated aspect of rational choice institutionalism and a key point of contention for
critics of the approach is the use of this deductive methodology and the tendency towards
relatively narrow, even mechanical specification of actor motives, preferences and
institutional contexts. Critics have questioned the assumption that actors are always driven
by motives featuring self interested maximising strategies (Self 1993). Even more
contentious has been the way in which actor preferences, or how the content of the
maximising motive, is specified.
9 As one might expect, analyses focused on legislatures tend to emphasize the importance of voluntary
agreement, while analyses focused on economic institutions put more emphasis on competitive selection
10 Cf. Williamson, Market and Hierarchies (New York, Free Press, 1975) pp. 57–89.
11 Dunleavy 1991
17
that we know that politicians and bureaucrats do not always behave like this.A common
critique of rational choice approach is that it overemphasises institutions and structures and
down plays choice and agency, ending up with a fairly mechanistic form of explanation.
Despite its putative concern with individual choice, rational choice theory strips away all
distinctive features of individuality, replacing political subjects with calculating automatons.
Rather than accounting for the choices of a situated subject, it describes what any utility
maximising chooser would do in a given situation. In this way, rational choice analysis
moves from an apparently agent centred individualism exhibited in choice, to a deep
structuralism, simply [and too mechanically] deriving action from context.12
Sociological Institutionalism
we have seen, many rational choice institutionalists explain the development of an institution
by reference to the efficiency with which it serves the material ends of those who accept it.
By contrast, sociological institutionalists argue that organizations often adopt a new
institutional practice, not because it advances the means-ends efficiency of the organization
but because it enhances the social legitimacy of the organization or its participants. In other
words, organizations embrace specific institutional forms or practices because the latter are
widely valued within a broader cultural environment. In some cases, these practices may
actually be dysfunctional with regard to achieving the organization’s formal goals. Campbell
captures this perspective nicely by describing it as a ‘logic of social appropriateness’ in
contrast to a ‘logic of instrumentality’.13
APPLICATIONS :
13 C.f. Campbell, ‘Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy,’ op. cit. in note 54, and
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions (New York, Free Press, 1989), ch. 2
19
● A state which is fragmented, which is open and porous to external demands and pressures
(ie. strongly liberal democratic), and which has only a limited capacity for centralised
coordination.
● A non-state sector which is fragmented with multiple groups and associations displaying
relatively weak internal leadership and organisational capacities.
In such a network policy is typically made through a struggle of competing interests with
little capacity for leadership or strategic direction. The type of policy making which typically
emerges from such a network tends to be ad hoc and reactive. The state itself is too weak and
open to impose order much from above and the non-state actors are themselves fragmented
and unable to exercise decisive leadership. The system may be quite democratic in the sense
that there are many voices, but it is also often directionless and frustrating from any kind of
strategic policy perspective. Hence, whatever their strategic or normative preferences, if
actors find themselves in an institutionally embedded pressure pluralist policy network, a
policy muddle of many voices, limited leadership and slow policy change is likely to be the
result (see Atkinson and Coleman 1989; Bell 1992).
capacity to push beyond the type of pressure pluralist political gridlock noted above and get
things done. State capacity is also said to be enhanced by having a relatively hierarchical and
centralised bureaucratic structure that is able to provide policy makers with the institutional
means for purposeful and coordinated action. State capacity is also assisted by having a
capable bureaucracy staffed with expert and dedicated policy advisers and policy
implementors. Adequate resources (especially taxation revenue, cf. the state’s ‘extractive’
capacity vis-à-vis society) as well as appropriate policy instruments and related institutional
resources are also critical. As Krasner (1984: 228) explains:
Beyond this, the ability of state leaders and policy makers to understand
the needs of and to forge positive, collaborative and change-oriented relations with key
groups or sectors (‘state embeddedness’) is also thought to be an important institutional
relationship supporting state capacity. This capacity for positive statesociety collaboration, or
what Weiss (1998) terms ‘governed interdependence’, in turn depends on the organisational
and associative capacity and outlook of major social or economic groupings and interest
associations. Primarily, then, the relevance of the state capacity concept is that it underlines
the fact that the resources and capacities of political leaders will be heavily shaped by the
particular types of institutional environments in which they operate. Institutions also underpin
the varieties of capitalism we encounter in different countries.
behaviour on the part of actors. Hence, the critical test in the institutional design of public or
governing institutions, according to Brennan and Buchanan (1981: 161) is ‘whether
institutions serve to help transform private interests into public interests’. Several examples
will illustrate this.
FRONTIERS OF INSTITUTIONALISM :
There are several key issues that stand at the current frontiers of
institutionalist research. First, there is the question of the relationship between institutions
and political power. The main issue here is to work out the extent to which power dynamics
need to be understood (1) as an artefact of specific institutional arrangements and (2) as an
artefact of the structural location in which particular institutions exist. Second, scholars have
tried to explore the nature of the relationship 12 between institutions and world of ideas,
language and discourse (Campbell 1997; Thelen and Steinmo 1992: 16-22). Third, there is
the issue of institutional change and how to explain it; an issue taken up briefly here.
would seem better at explaining institutional inertia not episodes of change, especially rapid
change. Therefore, cases featuring rapid and dynamic change might be expected to push at or
indeed beyond the limits of institutionalist explanation. Nevertheless, it is always important
to explain change processes as an interaction between institutional actors and external
pressures. However, most of the models of institutional change emphasise that the key drivers
of change are often external or exogenous to the institutional setting, usually the result of
some kind or external disturbance or crisis.
In this respect, Thelen and Steinmo (1992: 16) present three models
of institutional change and dynamism, all of which emphasise exogonous causation. First,
‘broad changes in the socioeconomic or political context can produce a situation in which
previously latent institutions suddenly become salient’; second, similar drivers of change
‘produce a situation in which old institutions are put in the service of different ends’, and
third, where ‘exogonous changes produce a shift in the goals or strategies being pursued
within existing institutions’. Examples of such models are not hard to find. For example, they
reflect what has happened to the Reserve Bank of Australia over the last twenty years.
External contextual changes (financial deregulation, high inflation in the 1970s and 1980s,
and a change in monetary policy Instruments) have helped transform the institution in the
ways described by Thelen and Steinmo. But are such exogenous accounts of change enough?
Probably not. Take the case of the Tariff Board In the 1960s. This was a federal government
body charged with setting tariff levels which (1) drastically changed its role (in the direction
of pushing for lower tariffs) without altering its institutional parameters and (2) was a case in
which inspired leadership from within forced a rapid 13 change process. Still, as Pontussen
(1995) argues, we should never look at institutions in isolation from their environment. In the
tariff Board case, changes in Australia's place in the international economy played an
important role in setting up favourable conditions which assisted the Tariff Board's leadership
to drive the change process (Bell 1993: ch 3).
24
CONCLUSION :
This chapter has argued that institutions matter in political life and it has
tried to explain how and why this is so. Institutions can be defined as sets of rules, codes or
tacit understandings which shape behaviour. Whether they determine behaviour is another
matter. As we saw above, rational choice approaches to institutionalist explanation run
perilously close to this. For this reason it is best instead to carefully explore the interaction
between institutions and the ‘situated subjects’ within them. The emphasis should be on
actors as the primary unit of analysis and how they interpret and make choices within their
institutional environment. It is these interpretive processes which have been the focus of the
research mentioned above on how ideas and discourse interact with institutional settings.
Reference was made above to the fact that the old institutionalism was somewhat
theoretically anaemic. This cannot be said of new institutionalism. Instead of description or
normative evaluation, the focus of new institutionalism is more oriented towards explanation
and explicit theory building. The approach forces us to reconsider central theoretical issues,
such as the agency/structure debate. There is also the related issue of how institutions interact
with wider structural forces in politics and the economy, and, as just noted, explorations of
the links between the institutional and ideational realms are underway. These linkages
underline the fact that institutional accounts of politics, whilst often being of critical
importance, can only ever be one (middle range) dimension of more fully rounded
explanatory accounts in political analysis.
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9699/Institutionalism.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Institutional-Theory