New Institutionalism became a dominant approach in contemporary politics
due to a combination of intellectual developments, empirical challenges to older paradigms, and a renewed interest in the role of institutions in shaping political behavior and outcomes. Here’s an overview of how this transformation took place:
1. Reaction to Behavioralism and Rational Choice Theory
In the mid-20th century, the behavioral revolution in political science emphasized individual-level analysis and sought to explain political phenomena through quantifiable behaviors. By the 1970s and 1980s, rational choice theory, focusing on individuals as rational actors maximizing utility, gained prominence. However, both approaches were criticized for neglecting the role of institutions in structuring political behavior and choices.
New Institutionalism emerged in response, focusing on how institutions (rules, norms, and structures) shape political behavior and outcomes. Scholars argued that institutions don’t just constrain choices but also create preferences and identities, thus influencing political life in profound ways.
2. The Failure of Structural-Functionalism and Marxist Structuralism
The earlier structural-functionalism, associated with scholars like Talcott Parsons and Gabriel Almond, faced criticism for being overly static and failing to explain change or power dynamics adequately. Similarly, Marxist structuralism, while focused on structures, often reduced the analysis to economic determinism. New Institutionalism offered a more nuanced understanding of institutions that didn’t reduce everything to economics or static functions but acknowledged the dynamic interplay between actors and institutions.
3. Influence of Historical and Sociological Perspectives
The development of New Institutionalism was also influenced by the incorporation of historical and sociological insights into political analysis. Scholars like Theda Skocpol and Paul Pierson emphasized that institutions have deep historical roots, and past decisions (path dependency) shape contemporary political and economic outcomes. This historical perspective challenged the idea that political changes result from short-term strategic actions by individuals alone.
The sociological perspective, led by scholars like John W. Meyer and James G. March, highlighted the role of norms, culture, and social meanings in shaping institutions. This focus on the "cultural" aspects of institutions brought to light the informal rules and shared understandings that guide political behavior.
4. Expanding the Definition of Institutions
One of the contributions of New Institutionalism was its broader conceptualization of institutions. Instead of focusing solely on formal rules and organizations (like parliaments or bureaucracies), it began to include informal norms, social practices, and cognitive scripts. This shift allowed researchers to analyze a wider range of political phenomena, from policy-making processes to state-society relations.
5. Empirical Failures of Old Theories
The limitations of behavioralism and rational choice theory in explaining key political phenomena (like state formation, political stability, and policy persistence) led to the search for alternative frameworks. For instance, the inability to explain why some states succeeded in policy reforms or democratization while others failed pushed scholars to explore institutional dynamics in more detail.
6. Rise of Neo-Institutional Economics
The emergence of New Institutional Economics (NIE) by economists like Douglass North helped shape the development of New Institutionalism in political science. North and others argued that institutions matter fundamentally in reducing transaction costs and shaping economic and political outcomes. This economic perspective provided a bridge for political scientists to integrate institutional analysis into mainstream political science.
7. Development of Subtypes of New Institutionalism
Over time, scholars developed multiple strands within New Institutionalism, each emphasizing different aspects of institutional influence:
- Rational Choice Institutionalism: Focuses on how institutions shape and constrain the strategic choices of rational actors.
- Historical Institutionalism: Emphasizes how historical processes and path dependencies shape institutions and political outcomes.
- Sociological Institutionalism: Highlights the role of norms, identities, and cultural understandings in shaping institutional behavior.
These subtypes offered different but complementary lenses for understanding political phenomena, making New Institutionalism a versatile and adaptable framework.
8. Focus on Power, Ideas, and Agency
New Institutionalism managed to integrate the study of power, ideas, and agency into institutional analysis. Scholars like Kathleen Thelen, Peter Hall, and Colin Hay combined structural explanations with an emphasis on how ideas and agency shape institutions. This flexibility allowed New Institutionalism to engage with critical questions of power and change while acknowledging the constraints imposed by existing institutions.
Summary
New Institutionalism became dominant due to its ability to address the shortcomings of older approaches, its expanded definition of institutions, and its adaptability in incorporating historical, rational, and sociological perspectives. By emphasizing the dynamic interaction between actors and institutions, it offered a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of political phenomena, making it a central approach in contemporary political science.
