CHAPTER 9

ONE INSTITUTIONALISM OR MANY?

To this point we have been operatin ver! e"p#i$it#! as i% there were a n&'ber o% (i%%erent
versions o% instit&tiona#is') This is a &se%&# e"er$ise %or e"p#i$atin ea$h o% the in(ivi(&a#
theories) *e nee(+ however+ to thin, i% (espite the s&bt#e an( even not so s&bt#e (i%%eren$es
that e"ist a'on these approa$hes to instit&tions there 'a! rea##! be one %&n(a'enta#
perspe$tive on po#iti$a# an( so$ia# #i%e+ with a n&'ber o% (i%%erent variations on the sa'e
the'e) Th&s+ is this bo(! o% theor! #i,e E#ar-s Eni'a .ariations with its apparent#!
(i%%erent versions a## bo&n( toether b! the basi$ the'e+ or is it rea##! a series o% interestin
so#o pie$es with %ew rea# $o''on the'es?
There are points that $o&#( be 'a(e on either si(e o% this ar&'ent /irst+ it appears that a##
these approa$hes to instit&tiona#is' stress the sa'e %&n(a'enta# ana#!ti$ points) The 'ost
%&n(a'enta# point is that s$ho#ars $an a$hieve reater ana#!ti$ #everae b! beinnin with
instit&tions rather than with in(ivi(&a#s) /&rther+ a## the approa$hes point to0 the ro#e that
str&$t&re p#a!s in (eter'inin behavior+ as we## as its ro#e in (eter'inin the o&t$o'es o%
po#iti$a# pro$esses) In a((ition+ a## the versions o% instit&tiona#is' ar&e that instit&tions
$reate reater re&#arities in h&'an behavior than wo&#( be otherwise %o&n() At a pra$ti$a#
#eve# instit&tions (o have the $apa$it! to 'o#( in(ivi(&a# behavior an( to re(&$e 1b&t not
e#i'inate2 the &n$ertaint! that otherwise (o'inates '&$h o% so$ia# #i%e) To the e"tent that the
environ'ent o% one instit&tion is $o'pose( #are#! o% other instit&tions 1an( hen$e o%
so'ewhat #esser variabi#it!2+ that &n$ertaint! $an be re(&$e( even %&rther 1Me!er an(
Rowan+ 3944+ 5iMaio an( Powe##+39932) /or the so$ia# s$ientist this re(&$tion o%
&n$ertaint! 'a,es pre(i$tion 'ore %easib#e+ an( provi(es a better ro&te %or so$ia#
e"p#anation)
/ina##!+ instit&tions are seen in a## b&t perhaps the 'ost e"tre'e $on$ept&a#i6ations as the
res&#ts o% p&rposive h&'an a$tion+ so that the %&n(a'enta# para(o" 17ra%stein+ 39982 o%
instit&tions bein %or'e( b! h&'an aents !et $onstrainin those sa'e a$tors arises in a##
versions o% the new instit&tiona#is') This para(o" in t&rn re9&ires that ea$h o% the approa$hes
%in(s so'e 'eans o% e"p#ainin wh! pres&'ab#! a&tono'o&s a$tors a$$ept the $onstraints o%
an instit&tion) /or so'e visions o% instit&tions 1a'e theor! an( rei'e0 theor!2 this 'a! be
in or(er to have their a(versaries $onstraine(+ whi#e %or others it 'a! be a 'ore nor'ative
e"p#anation that in(ivi(&a#s e"pe$t va#&es an( ro#es to be provi(e( to the' b! the instit&tions
the! :oin)
The above points o% si'i#arit! $an be $o&nterba#an$e( b! so'e %&n(a'enta# (i%%eren$es
a'on the approa$hes) One is the instr&'ent thro&h whi$h $onstraint on the in(ivi(&a# is
e"er$ise() In so'e approa$hes this is e"er$ise( thro&h va#&es an( nor's+ whi#e in others it
is per%or'e( thro&h r&#es 1whether intra0 or inter0instit&tiona#2) Another %&n(a'enta#
(i%%eren$e a'on the approa$hes is the (eree to whi$h instit&tions are ass&'e( to be
'&tab#e or re#ative#! %i"e() In so'e approa$hes the %&n(a'enta# 'eans o% &n(erstan(in
instit&tions is their (eree o% %i"it!+ whi#e in others it is ass&'e( that orani6ations en:o! a
s&bstantia# $apa$it! %or $hane+ p#anne( or &np#anne() /ina##!+ there are a#so (i%%eren$es in
the e"tent to whi$h instit&tions are $on$ept&a#i6e( as $on$rete ob:e$ts+ as oppose( to 'ore
intanib#e $o##e$tions o% nor's an( va#&es that have their in%#&en$e pri'ari#! thro&h the
per$eptions o% the 'e'bers o% the instit&tions)
*e wi## now pro$ee( to o thro&h the above si" points abo&t instit&tions to (es$ribe 'ore
%&##! the si'i#arities an( (i%%eren$es a'on the approa$hes to instit&tiona#is') There $an
perhaps be no (e%inite so#&tion to the 9&estion o% whether there is one &n(er#!in approa$h or
not+ b&t this e"er$ise sho&#( he#p to $#ari%! the prin$ipa# points abo&t whi$h there wo&#( be
possib#e (isaree'ent an( si'i#arit!) /&rther+ it 'a! he#p $#ari%! the e"tent to whi$h the
(i%%eren$es are so %&n(a'enta# that the! wo&#( prevent an! a'a#a'ation o% approa$hes as a
'eans o% $reatin a 'ore &ni%ie( bo(! o% instit&tiona# theor! %or po#iti$a# s$ien$e) There are+
o% $o&rse+ (i%%eren$es or there wo&#( not be the (i%%erent approa$hes; the 9&estion is whether
or not those (i%%eren$es are %ata# %or an! interation)
SIMILARITIES IN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
The %irst an( %&n(a'enta# point o% si'i#arit! %or the approa$hes to instit&tions is their
e'phasis on instit&tions) This 'ost basi$+ an( b#in(in#! obvio&s+ point %or a## the
approa$hes to instit&tiona# ana#!sis is that instit&tiona# %a$tors are the 'ost appropriate points
o% (epart&re %or so$ia# ana#!sis) This a((resses a prob#e' in so$ia# ana#!sis the re#ative
i'portan$e o% str&$t&re an( aen$! in e"p#anation 15ess#er+ 39<9; S6to'p,a+ 399=; Ha!+
399>; see a#so Ar$her+ 39942 0 en$o&ntere( in a n&'ber o% areas in the so$ia# s$ien$es) That
is+ are o&t$o'es in so$ia# pro$esses (eter'ine(+ or best pre(i$te( b!+ str&$t&ra# %a$tors or ar$
the! 'ore pre(i$tab#e b! the a$tions o% h&'an aents? *e have pointe( o&t that to at #east
one 'a:or so$ia# theorist+ Anthon! 7i((ens 139<3; 39<=2+ the str&$t&re0aen$! (istin$tion is
#are#! a %a#se (i$hoto'!) 7i((ens ar&es that there is a (&a#it! in a## so$ia# re#ationships+ so
that both %a$tors are a#'ost a#wa!s in operation) Even i% that is the $ase+ the instit&tiona#is's
wo&#( sti## ar&e that in the p&b#i$ se$tor so$ia# s$ientists $an ain reater #everae b!
beinnin an ana#!sis with the str&$t&res an( then thin,in abo&t the in(epen(ent i'pa$ts o%
aen$!)
7iven that these are a## instit&tiona# theories it appears obvio&s that the! a## %o$&s on the
i'pa$t o% str&$t&re on those o&t$o'es) ?&$,er 139<<+ p)842 ar&es+ %or e"a'p#e+ that a#one
a'on so$ia# s$ien$e theories instit&tiona#is' provi(es no p#a$e %or in(ivi(&a#s an( their
interests) A## o% these approa$hes bein with instit&tions o% so'e sort or another+ si'p#!
be$a&se their proponents be#ieve that is the so&r$e o% the reatest ana#!ti$ #everae in the
so$ia# s$ien$es) That havin been sai(+ there are sti## so'e i'portant variations in the wa! in
whi$h these approa$hes (ea# with the $entra# ro#e o% str&$t&re in the ana#!sis 1see Easton+
399@2) /or e"a'p#e+ %or e'piri$a# instit&tiona#is's there appears to be #itt#e e#se other than
str&$t&re avai#ab#e to provi(e the e"p#anation; the on#! set o% variab#es in$#&(e( in the
ana#!sis is str&$t&ra#+ an( even then it is #are#! $on%ine( to (i%%eren$es between presi(entia#
an( par#ia'entar! rei'es) A#so+ the internationa# version o% instit&tiona#is's appears to
a##ow #itt#e or no roo' %or h&'an aen$!) I%+ however+ the nation state is &se( as the ana#o&e
o% the in(ivi(&a# then there is s&bstantia##! 'ore roo' %or aen$!+ an( in(ee( the 9&estion o%
whether the rei'e e"ists at a## is a 9&estion o% whether there is so'ethin that (istin&ishes
a rei'e %ro' a non0rei'e) /ina##!+ the rationa# $hoi$e instit&tiona#is's appear to provi(e a
oo( (ea# o% #atit&(e %or h&'an aen$! at the in$eption o% an instit&tion an( in its (esin 0
b&t then there is a#'ost no opport&nit! %or in(ivi(&a# a$tion+ with those bein (eter'ine(
#are#! b! the r&#es an( in$entives)
At the other en( o% the (i'ension within the instit&tiona# theories wo&#( #ie the Mar$h an(
O#sen approa$h) Interestin#! %or the se'ina# approa$h in the new instit&tiona#is'+ the
-nor'ative instit&tiona#- approa$h appears to (epen( 'ore on h&'an aen$! than an! o% the
others) Their $on$ept&a#i6ation o% an instit&tion+ with its e'phasis on the (eve#op'ent an(
trans'ission o% nor's a'on the 'e'bers o% the instit&tion+ p#a$es '&$h 'ore e'phasis on
the wa! in whi$h the 'e'bers behave) In parti$&#ar+ it %o$&ses on in(ivi(&a# 'e'bers o% the
instit&tion as the &nit o% ana#!sis+ at #east to the e"tent that their interpretations o% the nor's
'a! var!) Th&s+ an ob:e$tive o&tsi(er 'a! i(enti%! a parti$&#ar -#oi$ o% appropriateness-+ b&t
the 'e'bers o% the instit&tion 'a! interpret the nor's ver! (i%%erent#!)
The (eree o% #atit&(e %or aen$! in the other approa$hes to instit&tiona# ana#!sis #ies
so'ewhere between these two) Most interestin#! the rationa# $hoi$e versions o%
instit&tiona#is' are so'ewhat a'bi&o&s with respe$t to aen$!) On the one han(+ the
e'phasis on $hoi$e an( (esin appears to provi(e a oo( (ea# o% #atit&(e %or h&'an a$tion+
espe$ia##! in the -in(ivi(&a# -version o% rationa# $hoi$e a(vo$ate( b! Ae'an 1399Ba2+ S$harp%
139942+ an( their asso$iates 1Hertier+ 399B2) /&rther+ the notion that in(ivi(&a#s 'a! (e%e$t in
the a'e0theoreti$ version or that so'e a$tors 'a! re9&ire e"terna# $ontro# within the
prin$ipa#0aent version i'p#ies a oo( (ea# o% roo' %or aen$!) On the other han(+ there a#so
appears to be #itt#e #atit&(e %or (i%%erentia# interpretation o% r&#es within that one version o%
the approa$h) Th&s+ there appears to be a 'i"e( -s$ore$ar( %or rationa# $hoi$e instit&tiona#is'
here)
In s&''ar!+ the approa$hes to instit&tiona# ana#!sis a## %o$&s attention on the i'portan$e o%
str&$t&re in e"p#ainin po#iti$a# behavior) That havin been sai(+ the! (i%%er in the 'anner in
whi$h the! posit that in%#&en$e an( the ro#e whi$h the! a##ow %or h&'an aen$!) In(ee(+ %or
so'e approa$hes the ro#e o% instit&tions (epen(s heavi#! on the a$tions o% the 'e'bers o% the
instit&tion+ an( their per$eptions o% the r&#es o% their instit&tions) /or 'ost approa$hes the
str&$t&ra# $hara$teristi$s o% those instit&tions are the (eter'inin %eat&re)
Re&#arities
A## %or's o% instit&tiona#is' a#so ar&e that instit&tions $reate reater re&#arit! in in(ivi(&a#
behavior than wo&#( be %o&n( witho&t the e"isten$e o% those instit&tions) This is tr&e even o%
a'orpho&s instit&tions s&$h as the 'ar,et that a#so $onstrain the behavior o% in(ivi(&a#s+ an(
there%ore pro(&$e reater pre(i$tabi#it! than wo&#( be the $ase i% in(ivi(&a#s were not
in%#&en$e( b! their r&#es an(Cor in$entives) The sa'e #oi$ ho#(s tr&e o% rei'es in
internationa# re#ations theor! with the behavior o% in(ivi(&a# nations bein $onstraine( b!
their 'e'bership in the rei'e) I% this $onstraint is in(ee( apparent then it represents a 'a:or
a$$o'p#ish'ent in the internationa# arena pres&'ab#! $hara$teri6e( b! the a$tions o%
soverein an( a&tono'o&s a$tors)
This $on$ern with $o''ona#it! o% behavior within instit&tions is ana#oo&s to the 9&estion
o% aen$! raise( above) I% there is a si6eab#e $apa$it! %or h&'an aen$! then there wi## not be
the (eree o% re&#arit! that 'iht be e"pe$te( %ro' an instit&tion 0 in an! o% the approa$hes)
A#tho&h we wi## aree that there are so'e re&#arities in behavior+ we sti## (o not ,now how
'&$h re&#arit! is s&%%i$ient to sa! that the instit&tion e"ists) This points o&t+ in+ a rather
perverse wa!+ one o% the $#earest $o''ona#ities in the #iterat&re 0 none o% the' provi(es an!
(ear stan(ar(s %or re(&$tion o% varian$e in behavior as a 'eans o% (eter'inin the e"isten$e
o% the instit&tion)
The rea# theoreti$a# prob#e' that arises here is that so'e o% the approa$hes+ e)) r&#e0base(
rationa# $hoi$e+ ten( to (e%ine instit&tions b! the $reation o% re&#arit!+ or b! the a$$eptan$e
o% r&#es o% behavior) As a#rea(! pointe( o&t+ these $riteria %or the e"isten$e o% an instit&tion
appear to approa$h bein ta&to#oi$a# in so'e instan$es) In other $ases+ however+ there is a
$#ear a$$eptan$e o% $ontin&e( (eviations %ro' the (o'inant stan(ar(s o% behavior within the
instit&tion) /or e"a'p#e+ in the Mar$h an( O#sen approa$h there is an ass&'ption that
'e'bers o% the instit&tion wi## behave in the -appropriate- 'anner+ b&t the 'o(e# is a#so
$apab#e o% a$$eptin that so'e+ or even 'an!+ 'e'bers o% the instit&tion wi## behave in
inappropriate wa!s) There wi## sti## be an instit&tion in that $ase+ b&t it wo&#( not be as %&##!
instit&tiona#i6e( as wo&#( one with reater &ni%or'it! o% va#&es)
Meas&re'ent
A %ina# $o''ona#it! a'on the instit&tiona# theories+ an( a so'ewhat tro&b#in one %or+ an!
s$ho#ar a(vo$atin these theories+ is the 'etho(o#oi$a# prob#e' o% 'eas&re'ent an(
veri%i$ation) *e a## ,now that instit&tions e"ist; o&r #ives are in%#&en$e( b! the' ever! (a!
an( in n&'ero&s wa!s) This is tr&e %or a'orpho&s instit&tions s&$h as the %a'i#! an( #aw as
we## as 'ore tanib#e instit&tions s&$h as a p&b#i$ b&rea&$ra$!) The prob#e' is one o%
(e%inin those instit&tions in a wa! that is inters&b:e$tive#! trans'issib#e an( that %its with
the $anons o% $onte'porar! so$ia# s$ien$e) It was ar&e( ear#! in this boo, that one thin that
(istin&ishes the new instit&tiona#is' %ro' the o#( is the 'ore e"p#i$it $on$ern with 'etho(s
an( theor!) Un%ort&nate#!+ that (i%%eren$e %ro' o#( instit&tiona#is' is not as prono&n$e( as it
'iht be+ an( there are sti## 'a:or 'etho(o#oi$a# prob#e's in the new instit&tiona#is')
Even here there are so'e i'portant (i%%eren$es a'on the approa$hes) On one en( o% a
(i'ension the so$io#oi$a# instit&tiona#ists appear to have 'a(e the 'ost proress in
'eas&re'ent+ in #are part be$a&se o% their $#ose #in, with orani6ation theor!)- A#'ost b!
(e%inition the e'piri$a# instit&tiona#ists have 'a(e so'e ains in 'eas&re'ent+ b&t that is
o%ten at a si'p#e no'ina# 1presi(entia#0par#ia'entar!2 #eve#) At the other en( o% the spe$tr&'
the nor'ative instit&tiona#ists an( the internationa# instit&tiona#ists appear to have 'a(e the
#east proress+ iven their re#ian$e on re#ative#! -so%t+- a#beit sini%i$ant+ $on$epts s&$h as
nor's an( va#&es) In a## $ases+ however+ there appears to be a reat nee( %or 'ore rior in
$on$ept&a#i6ation an( then 'eas&re'ent o% the pheno'ena that are ass&'e( to 'a,e &p
instit&tions)
5I//ERENCES AMON7 INSTITUTIONAL THEORIESD THEY ARE NOT ALL THE
SAME
There are a n&'ber o% $o''on- %eat&res in instit&tiona# theor!+ b&t there a#so appear to be a
n&'ber o% sini%i$ant (i%%eren$es a'on these vario&s approa$hes) None o% the approa$hes
stan(s o&t tota##! %ro' the others+ an( one 'a! a#in with so'e on vario&s $hara$teristi$s
an( with others on (i%%erent $hara$teristi$s) In enera#+ however+ the Mar$h an( O#sen -va#&e-
approa$h to instit&tions appears re#ative#! si'i#ar to the histori$a# instit&tiona# approa$h)
A#so+ iven its inte##e$t&a# roots the va#&es version o% instit&tions is a#so ver! $#ose to the
so$io#oi$a# version o% the approa$h) Si'i#ar#!+ the rationa# $hoi$e approa$h to instit&tions
appears ver! $o'patib#e with so'e aspe$ts o% the e'piri$a# approa$h+ iven the e'phasis in
both on the $apa$it! to $hoose instit&tions)
5e%initions o% Instit&tions
The 'ost basi$ (i%%eren$es a'on the approa$hes arise in the (e%initions o% what is an
instit&tion+ an( the %a$tors that operate to $onstrain in(ivi(&a# behavior within the $onte"t o%
the orani6ation) As has been pointe( o&t ear#ier+ there are three t!pes o% answers to that
9&estion) The %irst is that va#&es $onstrain in(ivi(&a#s; an( that the nat&re o% instit&tions is
#are#! nor'ative) The ass&'ption %or this answer is that a#tho&h in(ivi(&a#s 'a! i'port
so'e va#&es when the! :oin an instit&tions the! are wi##in b! virt&e o% :oinin to a##ow
instit&tiona# va#&es to (o'inate)
An a#ternative answer is that instit&tions are (e%ine( b! their r&#es+ an( that what $onstrains
in(ivi(&a# behavior within instit&tions are 'ore %or'a# state'ents o% what a oo( 'e'ber o%
the instit&tion sho&#( an( sho&#( not (o) Th&s t!pe o% answer is t!pi$a# o% the rationa# $hoi$e
approa$h a#tho&h it sho&#( be broa(ene( to in$#&(e positive in$entives as we## as the 'ore
neative $onstraints o% r&#es)
/ina##!+ in(ivi(&a# behavior 'a! be $onstraine( b! the re&#ari6e( patterns o% intera$tion
within instit&tions) This is a wea, $riterion an( 1#i,e severa# other ar&'ents in instit&tiona#
theor!2 bor(ers on the ta&to#oi$a#) Instit&tions are (e%ine( in so'e approa$hes b! their
$apa$it! to $onstrain behavior+ !et here their $apa$it! to $onstrain is bein assesse( as a
re#ative#! in(epen(ent $riterion)
Pre%eren$es
Another e"tre'e#! %&n(a'enta# (i%%eren$e a'on these approa$hes to instit&tiona#is' is) the
so&r$e o% pre%eren$es in the theories 1see 5ow(inb an( Ain+ 399>3 pp)8042) /irst+
pre%eren$es are e"terna#+ or e"oeno&s+ to the theor!) In these approa$hes pre%eren$es are
ass&'e( to be a pro(&$t o% the so$ia#i6ation o% in(ivi(&a#s+ an( are bro&ht b! the in(ivi(&a#s
into their instit&tions) /or e"a'p#e+ in rationa# $hoi$e theor! 'a,in the $hoi$es is basi$+ an(
the roots o% those pre%eren$es are irre#evant) The rea# 9&estion %or these theories is the
str&$t&re o% in$entives an( r&#es that wi## (eter'ine behavior) In(ee(+ in rationa# $hoi$e
theories o% instit&tions the pre%eren$es o% the in(ivi(&a#s are ass&'e( to be a#'ost &ni%or'+
espe$ia##! the pre%eren$e %or 'a"i'i6in persona# &ti#ities)
A#tho&h '&$h #ess e"p#i$it than in rationa# $hoi$e approa$hes+ an( in a((ition '&$h #ess
sini%i$ant+ pre%eren$es a#so are ass&'e( to be e"oeno&s in the e'piri$a# approa$hes to
instit&tions) In these perspe$tives the basi$ pre%eren$e is %or a $apa$it! to 'a,e (e$isions) an(
to i'p#e'ent the' e%%i$ient#!) The o%ten (is$&sse( (i%%eren$es a'on instit&tiona# str&$t&res
s&$h as presi(entia# vers&s par#ia'entar! rei'es are phrase( in ter's o% their $apa$it! to
overn e%%e$tive#!) There is #itt#e or no attention pai( to the $on$erns o% the in(ivi(&a#s within
the overnin instit&tions+ a## o% who' are ass&'e( to share this $on$ern with e%%e$tive
overnan$e)
/or a## the other approa$hes to instit&tions pre%eren$es are en(oeno&s+ or the pro(&$t o%
in(ivi(&a# invo#ve'ent with the instit&tion) /or the nor'ative approa$h this en(oeneit! is
'ost evi(ent) Mar$h an( O#sen ar&e that in(ivi(&a#s (o possess sets o% basi$ va#&es be%ore
the! be$o'e invo#ve( with instit&tions b&t that their invo#ve'ent a#so shapes pre%eren$es) In
parti$&#ar+ invo#ve'ent with the instit&tion shapes those va#&es that are spe$i%i$a##! re#evant
to the) %&n$tionin o% that instit&tion) 7iven the $#ose $onne$tions between the nor'ative
approa$h an( the so$io#oi$a# approa$h to instit&tions+ it is not s&rprisin to %in( si'i#ar
ar&'ents abo&t the en(oeneit! o% pre%eren$es in these two approa$hes)
A#tho&h rei'e theor! appears to ar&e that pre%eren$es an( rei'es e'ere a#'ost
si'&#taneo&s#!+ it (oes appear that pre%eren$es are better &n(erstoo( as en(oeno&s) In
parti$&#ar+ the nee( %or soverein states to neotiate a'on the'se#ves to %in( an a$$eptab#e
set o% po#i$ies appears to ar&e stron#! that pre%eren$es are en(oeno&s) On the other han(+
the i'portan$e o% the0episte'i$ $o''&nities 1Tho'as+ 3994; ?ito+ 399<2 in %a$i#itatin the
%or'ation o% rei'es points to so'e possib#e e"oeneit! o% pre%eren$es in rei'es) To so'e
e"tent the (eree o% en(oeneit! in a rei'e 'a! var! in (i%%erent rei'es+ with those with a
stroner te$hni$a# or s$ienti%i$ basis havin the reatest e"oeneit!)
As we## as bein i'portant ana#!ti$a##!+ the so&r$e or pre%eren$es is a#so i'portant %or
&n(erstan(in the (!na'i$s o% instit&tions) *e wi## (is$&ss the ro#e o% $hane in instit&tiona#
theories be#ow+ b&t it is i'portant to &n(erstan( that i% pre%eren$es are $reate( e"terna##!+ an(
are a#so #are#! &n$haneab#e+ then the on#! wa! to enerate $hane is to a#ter the str&$t&re o%
in$entives an( r&#es that e"ist within an instit&tion) On the other han(+ i% pre%eren$es are
$on$ept&a#i6e( as '&tab#e then trans%or'ations $an be an onoin pro$ess o% re'a,in
in(ivi(&a# pre%eren$es thro&h the operations o% the instit&tions the'se#ves)
Chane
One o% the 'ost i'portant (i%%eren$es a'on approa$hes to instit&tions is their $on$eptions
o% $hane an( the wa! in whi$h the (i%%erent approa$hes $onsi(er $hane) Most
%&n(a'enta##!+ there is the 9&estion o% whether or not $hane is re$oni6e( as an or(inar!
part o% instit&tiona# #i%e or as the e"$eption to a r&#e o% stabi#it!+ an( perhaps even h!per
stabi#it!) *e note( ear#! in the (is$&ssion o% instit&tiona# theor! that one o% the $o''on
wa!s o% thin,in abo&t the str&$t&re0aen$! (ebate in so$ia# theor! is to as$ribe stabi#it! to
str&$t&re+ an( hen$e to instit&tions) In(ee( in so'e views o% instit&tions+ e)) histori$a#
instit&tiona#is'+ there is a :&(e'ent that instit&tions (o not $hane rea(i#!) There is a
%&n(a'enta# ass&'ption that instit&tions are in an e9&i#ibri&' that wi## re'ain in p#a$e
&n#ess there is so'e 'a:or -p&n$t&ation- to 'ove the' o%% that e9&i#ibri&' position 1Arasner+
39<=2)
The a#ternative $on$eption is that instit&tions are a#'ost inherent#! non0e9&i#ibri&'
str&$t&res) The ar&'ent o% *i##ia' Ri,er 139<@2 an( other s$ho#ars operatin %ro' ver!
(i%%erent ass&'ptions 17ra%stein+ 39982 is that instit&tions an( their r&#es are h&'an
$onstr&$tions) Instit&tions there%ore are s&b:e$t to the whi's o% the ver! peop#e 1or at #east
s&$$essors to these ver! peop#e2 that $reate( the' in the %irst instan$e) In this view r&#es are
short0ter' $onstraints on behavior+ at best+ with r&#es to so'e e"tent a#wa!s bein
reneotiate( a'on the 'e'bers o% the instit&tion+ or perhaps a'on severa# instit&tions) In
so'e so$ieties 1e)) the Unite( States2 basi$ instit&tiona# r&#es s&$h as $onstit&tions $an
s&rvive %or a ver! #on perio( o% ti'e+ whi#e in others 1e)) /ran$e2 $onstit&tions ten( to be
'ore #i,e perio(i$a# #iterat&re rather than en(&rin (o$&'ents 1Ha!war(+ 39<82) I% we 'ove
(own the #eve# o% enera#it! then the %ra'in r&#es o% overn'ent ten( to be even #ess stab#e)
A## the vario&s rationa# $hoi$e versions o% instit&tiona#is' share so'e o% the sa'e non0
e9&i#ibri&' $on$eptions o% instit&tions 'entione( above) The ass&'ption o% 'an! rationa#
$hoi$e theorists is that instit&tions are a#'ost in%inite#! '&tab#e+ si'p#! thro&h the se#e$tion
o% r&#es or str&$t&res) This ass&'ption 'a,es the (esin o% instit&tions a 'ore viab#e a$tivit!
than in other versions o% instit&tiona#is'+ b&t a#so 'a,es an! parti$&#ar instit&tiona# $hoi$e
s&b:e$t t$ re#ative#! eas! revision an( rep#a$e'ent) I% instit&tions (o not have va#&es to
$onstrain the behavior o% in(ivi(&a#s+ an( i% the initia# $hoi$es o% those instit&tions (o not
ten( to persist then there $an be #itt#e sense o% e9&i#ibri&' o% instit&tions in this 'o(e#)
In(ivi(&a#s an( Instit&tions
Another (i%%eren$e a'on the vario&s theoreti$a# approa$hes to instit&tions $on$erns the
a#ternative wa!s in whi$h in(ivi(&a#s an( instit&tions are h!pothesi6e( to intera$t to shape
ea$h other-s behavior) In the %irst instan$e there are (i%%eren$es in whether an approa$h
e'phasi6es the $apabi#it! o% an instit&tion to shape in(ivi(&a# behavior+ or whether it
e'phasi6es 'ore the $apa$it! o% in(ivi(&a#s to shape instit&tiona# per%or'an$e an( $hoi$es)
A## versions o% instit&tiona#is' have so'ethin to sa! abo&t both (ire$tions o% in%#&en$e+ b&t
there are prono&n$e( (i%%eren$es in the e'phasis the! $on%er &pon one (ire$tion or the other
o% in%#&en$e)
At one e"tre'e the e'piri$a# approa$h appears to ass&'e that instit&tions wi## shape the
va#&es an( Cor behaviors o% in(ivi(&a#s+ b&t that there is #itt#e re$ipro$a# in%#&en$e) /or
e"a'p#e+ a#tho&h there is so'e 9&estionin o% whether in(ivi(&a# presi(ents an( pri'e
'inisters $an per'anent#! trans%or' the o%%i$e 1Ro$,'an+ 39<=; Eones+ 39932+ the rea#
9&estion is how these t!pes o% rei'es a$t 9&a rei'es to shape o&t$o'es) Si'i#ar#!+ the
app#i$ations o% instit&tiona# theories to po#iti$a# parties an( interest ro&ps appears to
e'phasi6e the in%#&en$e that these str&$t&res have on the behavior o% in(ivi(&a#s+ rather than
the wa!s in whi$h in(ivi(&a# behavior shapes these instit&tions) /or e"a'p#e+ it appears that
in(ivi(&a# 'e'bers o% po#iti$a# parties are virt&a##! irre#evant to the (!na'i$s o% part!
s!ste's+ with the n&'ber o% parties an( 0their $hara$teristi$s ten(in to (eter'ine the nat&re
o% s!ste's 1see 5owns+ 39>42)
At the other e"tre'e rei'e theories an( other internationa# instit&tiona# approa$hes ten( to
ass&'e a s&bstantia# #eve# o% in%#&en$e o% -in(ivi(&a#s- the'se#ves $o##e$tive a$tors 0 on the
nat&re o% the rei'e) As was ar&e( above in re#ationship to pre%eren$es+ rei'es are
s&%%i$ient#! a'orpho&s entities that the! are reat#! in%#&en$e( b! the a$tors ta,in part in
the') Rationa# $hoi$e versions o% instit&tiona#is' a#so ten( to per'it a reat (ea# o%
in%#&en$e %or in(ivi(&a# a$tors) The basi$ point is that instit&tions are the pro(&$ts o% h&'an
aen$! an( the str&$t&re o% r&#es an( in$entives that is $reate( to shape the behavior o% the
parti$ipants is a $hoi$e o% the (esiners)
The nor'ative approa$h to instit&tiona#is' %a##s so'ewhere between these two e"tre'es)
More than the other versions it per'its the '&t&a# in%#&en$e o% in(ivi(&a#s an( instit&tions)
7iven the $entra# ro#e assine( to $o##e$tive nor's an( va#&es in (e%inin instit&tions in this
approa$h+ this 'iht appear to be a 'isstate'ent) However+ a ro#e %or in(ivi(&a# 'e'bers o%
the instit&tion in shapin those va#&es (oes re'ain in the theor!) Part o% the strenth+ an( the
wea,ness+ o% the nor'ative approa$h is that instit&tions an( their va#&es are e"pe$te( to
$ontin&e to evo#ve+ an( '&$h o% that evo#&tion $o'es abo&t as a res&#t o% the so'ewhat
(isparate va#&es o% in(ivi(&a#s who are re$r&ite( into the instit&tion)
CONCLUSIOND IS THERE A NE* INSTITUTIONALISM?
*e now arrive at the en( o% the boo,+ an( a 'a:or 9&estion 1or the 'a:or 9&estion2 sti##
re'ainsD Is there s&%%i$ient $o''ona#it! a'on the approa$hes to assert that there is a sin#e+
$oherent -new instit&tiona#is'- in po#iti$a# s$ien$e? It is $#ear that there are a n&'ber o%
$onten(in approa0$hes an( $on$eptions abo&t instit&tions+ b&t is there eno&h o% a $entra#
$ore to the approa$hes to ar&e %or the e"isten$e o% a new instit&tiona#is'+ an( $an that $ore
e"p#ain the $entra# pheno'ena o% $onte'porar! po#iti$s?
A%ter oin thro&h a## )the vario&s approa$hes it wi## be ar&e( that there is a s&%%i$ient $ore
to :&sti%! these approa$hes bein $onsi(ere( one broa(+ i% varieate(+ approa$h to po#iti$s)
The %&n(a'enta# iss&e ho#(in a## these vario&s approa$hes+ an( their vario&s $o'ponents+
toether is si'p#! that the! $onsi(er instit&tions the $entra# $o'ponent o% po#iti$a# #i%e) In
these theories instit&tions are the variab#e that e"p#ain 'ost o% po#iti$a# #i%e+ an( the! are a#so
the %a$tors that re9&ire e"p#anation) The basi$ ar&'ent is that instit&tions (o 'atter+ an( that
the! 'atter 'ore than an!thin e#se that $o&#( be &se( to e"p#ain po#iti$a# (e$isions)
In a## the approa$hes so'ethin abo&t instit&tions 0 their va#&es+ their r&#es+ their in$entives+
or the pattern o% intera$tions o% the in(ivi(&a#s within the' 0 e"p#ain the (e$isions that
overn'ents 'a,e) In(ivi(&a#s re'ain as i'portant a$tors in 'ost o% these theories+ b&t
there is s&bstantia##! reater #everae to be aine( thro&h &n(erstan(in the instit&tiona#
%ra'ewor,s within whi$h the! operate) Perhaps 'ore than an!thin e#se+ the in(ivi(&a#
e#e'ent o% po#i$!0'a,in $o'es into p#a! as the 'e'bers o% the instit&tion interpret what
the r&#es an( va#&es o% their instit&tions are)
Another in(i$ation o% the e"tent o% $o''ona#it! a'on the perspe$tives on instit&tions is the
n&'ber o% ti'es that a (is$&ssion o% one o% the approa$hes nat&ra##! #e( to a (is$&ssion o%
so'e aspe$t o% another) It appeare( in writin the boo, 1an( hope%&##! in rea(in it2 that
these see'in#! (isparate ro&ps o% s$ho#ars were ta#,in abo&t $o''on 9&estions+ a#beit
%ro' (i%%erent an#es an( inte##e$t&a# perspe$tives) So'e $o''on prob#e's o% overnin 0
i'p#e'entation+ %or'in overn'ents+ an( 'a,in e%%e$tive (e$isions 0 poppe( &p whenever
we bean to thin, an( write abo&t instit&tions)
*hat the new instit&tiona#is' (oes #ess we## is to e"p#ain the instit&tions the'se#ves- A
n&'ber o% the approa$hes $ontain so'e $on$eptions abo&t where instit&tions $o'e %ro' an(
how the! $hane+ b&t the 'a:orit! are 'ore $on$erne( with what i'pa$ts the instit&tions
have on po#i$! an( other po#iti$a# $hoi$es) /or both the histori$a# instit&tiona#ists an( the
e'piri$a# instit&tiona#ists the e"isten$e o% an instit&tion is #are#! a iven) One o% the
re9&ire'ents %or the %&t&re (eve#op'ent o% these theories is to $on$entrate 'ore on the
%or'ation an( trans%or'ation o% str&$t&res)
Another o% the %&t&re re9&ire'ents wi## be to %in( better wa!s o% testin instit&tiona# theor!)
*e have note( severa# ti'es that instit&tiona# approa$hes o%ten r&n the ris, o% bein non0
%a#si%iab#e) Instit&tiona# theories provi(e re#ative#! %ew in(epen(ent h!potheses that $an be
teste( witho&t the possibi#it! o% es$apin b! ar&in that there was not rea##! an instit&tion in
p#a$e) That is+ i% instit&tiona# nor's are not %o##owe( it $an be ar&e(- either that it was not a
%&##! (eve#ope( instit&tion or that an! instit&tion is per'itte( to have so'e (eviations %ro'
estab#ishe( nor's) Those state'ents 'a! be a$$&rate+ b&t with those es$apes it is (i%%i$&#t to
(is$on%ir' an! h!potheses abo&t the i'pa$ts o% instit&tions on in(ivi(&a# behavior+ (espite
the i'portan$e o% that #in,ae o% the theories)
/or a## the prob#e's that we $an i(enti%! in instit&tiona# theor! the approa$h sti## provi(es an
i'portant+ an( in(ee( essentia#+ - win(ow on po#iti$a# #i%e) Most po#iti$a# a$tion o% rea#
$onse9&en$e o$$&rs in instit&tions+ so it is $r&$ia# to &n(erstan( how these bo(ies a$t an(
how the! in%#&en$e the behavior o% in(ivi(&a#s wor,in within the') The n&'ero&s stran(s
o% the new instit&tiona#is' $arr! &s po#iti$a# s$ientists so'e (istan$e in that &n(erstan(in+
a#tho&h no one o% the versions o% instit&tiona#is' $an provi(e a $o'p#ete e"p#anation o%
instit&tiona# behavior) A#so+ there are sti## a n&'ber o% 9&estions that re9&ire %&rther
e"p#oration an( %&rther e#aboration) Sti##+ the (is$ip#ine has 'ove( %orwar(+ an( $ontin&es to
'ove %orwar(+ in a((ressin those 9&estions as a res&#t o% the (eve#op'ent o% the -new
instit&tiona#is')-
NOTES
3) The so$io#oi$a# approa$h+ iven its reater e'phasis on $hane an( -instit&tiona#i6ation;
'a! have reater (e'an(s %or 'eas&re'ent than (o the 'ore stati$ approa$hes $o'in
#are#! %ro' po#iti$a# s$ien$e)
8) An in(ivi(&a# probab#! wo&#( not se#e$t an instit&tion &n#ess its va#&es were $o'patib#e
with that person-s) The obvio&s e"$eption wo&#( be Et6ioni-s -$oer$ive- instit&tions over
whi$h the in(ivi(&a# ha( no $hoi$e)
F) This point was espe$ia##! obvio&s %or the e'piri$a# instit&tiona#ists)