lecture 7 - institutionalism

doesn’t really work for institutionalism institutionalism is something like a method, it is a substantive orientation towards the importance of institutions

institutions are important for what? differs per strand of institutionalism • to explain political behaviour (e.g.)

• description of constitutions, legal systems and government structures + comparison over time and across countries • origins in law (legal approach (only look at black letter law), not really social science) • arena view of politics institutions defined as: formal political arrangements, i.e. government organizations, constitutions, legal systems….. not concerned with defining their ontology, epistemology, methodology - in practice: mostly empirical

behaviouralist revolution (late 1960s?)

normative, historicist, holistic, structuralist, legalist, functionalist this was just what was being done, it is not a prescription of how to do old institutionalism, there is no guideline

• too much emphasis on formal rules, procedures and organizations (no focus on behaviour) • too much focus on government (no focus on governance process) • too static (what about change) • too descriptive (what about explanation?) • lacking methodological rigor

old institutionalism behaviouralism (1950s, 1960s) rational choice (1970s, 1980s) neo-institutionalism (1980s) - idea that focus on individual behaviour has gone to far, that institutions do matter, that it matters in how people behave

asks how: - institutions shape political behaviour - institutions are shaped by human actions looks at interaction between institutions (structure) and individuals (agents) but also inter- and intra-institutional interactions

• rules of the game • formal and informal criticism: if institution means everything, then it means nothing…. (everything politics: nothing distinctively political) - how will i recognize an institution when i see one

• a set of ‘rules’ that guide and constrain the behavior of individual actors • institutions provide the rules of the game, while organizations, like individuals, are players within that game • stable, valued and recurring patterns of behavior (Huntington) if a rule isn’t obeyed by anyone anymore, it is no longer seen as part of the institution (not normative)

informal rules can reinforce, compliment, co-exist, compete with, substitute, and/or override formal rules what are informal rules? - unwritten, tacit rules that define roles and behaviour - collectively shared and accepted, often taken for granted - norms, culture, history (socially derived) e.g. etiquette

institutions are generally stable (by definition): they set expectations for behaviour not all follow the rules -> stability can’t be taken for granted - rules can be seen as being made to be broken: to show what is and isn’t following the rules incremental, gradual process of adaptation or revolution

NOOOOO never normative about institutions, they don’t think its good that institutions…. they observe that they….

• seemingly neutral procedures and arrangements embody particular values, interests and identities • institutions must reflect some relatively common set of values if incentives are to function equally for all participants • inclusion or exclusion of different actors and selection of instruments is not value neutral but embedded in and sustains political values

institutions are considered autonomous, but they aren’t independent entities, existing outside of space and time three dimensional contextual nesting: - time - hierarchy - spatiality (political and non-political) vertical: rules from above shape rules/behaviour below in the hierarchy horizontal: (institutions next to each other? in space?)

how an institution has changed is important to understand how an institution will change past dependent type of answer to change

identify 3 forms of new institutionalism • rational choice institutionalism: incentive based (logic of consequence) • normative institutionalism: norm-based (logic of appropriateness) • historical institutionalism: both (as most strands): asks why institutions persist/change main two are rational choice and normative

• interpretive approach • value based, looks at religion, ideology • look at how people construct institutions + how institutions construct social behaviour logic of appropriateness + norm-based behaviour more likely to emphasize informal rules (rules as constructed and more difuse) can be both explanatory and interpretivist

logic of consequence + incentive-based behaviour more likely to emphasize formal rules to describe how institutions shape behaviour (consequences + rewards of (not) following rules)

assumptions: all individuals are rational + all individuals are self-interested steps of action: 1. what are my preferences/options (given institutional context) 2. what are the benefits and consequences of these options (given institutional settings) 3. select option which best meets preferences in this situation positivist approach *this is not how everyone always acts, it is what will best explain patterns of behaviour at the macrolevel

theoretical assumptions about individuals not pre-set • what is my position/role within this institution • what would constitute appropriate behavioural options given my position/role in this situation • which behavioural option which best meets my position/role within this institution looks at appropriate behaviour in a certain role, in a set of rules of an institution

ontology = mixed epistemology = mixed methodology = mixed not really/entirely empirical rational choice institutionalism: foundationalist, positivist, quantitative normative institutionalism: more fluid, including anti-foundation