PH336 Institutions
POLITICS: Wyn Grant
Schmidt identifies three schools:
Rational Choice Institutionalism (RI)
Historical Institutionalism (HI)
Discursive Institutionalism (DI).
Old Institutionalism
Strong German influence: proponents were generally German immigrants or Americans
with Doctorates from German universities.
Focused on formal institutions and legislative/judiciary/executive structures. These
are of course still relevant, but not necessarily sufficient, and are based on
normative values to some extent.
Believed the constitution and political structure determined the behaviour of actors
Normative approach focused on reform, associated with progressive movements
such as the campaign against trusts (i.e. cleaning up city government).
New Institutionalism
‘New Institutionalism’ (March and Olson) began to revive a focus on informal institutions.
Politics shape society as much as society shapes politics (see FT article, 3rd March).
Emphasis on norms and values in institution-influencing behaviour. Under this view, basic
features of institutions:
Structure
Network of informal institutions (not just formal)
Larger than the individuals involved and transcend their individual capabilities
Some identifiable stability over time. Not necessarily static, but must have an
identity
Must affect individual behaviours
Some shared values between members
New institutionalism defines institutions very broadly, requiring us to understand informal
institutions (‘the rules of the game’) as a prerequisite for analysing formal ones (the game
itself). Interest groups waging specific campaigns do not necessarily count as institutions,
but long-standing coalitions of interest groups (e.g. environmental groupings in Brussels)
might. In order to function, institutional groups should, supposedly, identify some
POLITICS: Wyn Grant
Schmidt identifies three schools:
Rational Choice Institutionalism (RI)
Historical Institutionalism (HI)
Discursive Institutionalism (DI).
Old Institutionalism
Strong German influence: proponents were generally German immigrants or Americans
with Doctorates from German universities.
Focused on formal institutions and legislative/judiciary/executive structures. These
are of course still relevant, but not necessarily sufficient, and are based on
normative values to some extent.
Believed the constitution and political structure determined the behaviour of actors
Normative approach focused on reform, associated with progressive movements
such as the campaign against trusts (i.e. cleaning up city government).
New Institutionalism
‘New Institutionalism’ (March and Olson) began to revive a focus on informal institutions.
Politics shape society as much as society shapes politics (see FT article, 3rd March).
Emphasis on norms and values in institution-influencing behaviour. Under this view, basic
features of institutions:
Structure
Network of informal institutions (not just formal)
Larger than the individuals involved and transcend their individual capabilities
Some identifiable stability over time. Not necessarily static, but must have an
identity
Must affect individual behaviours
Some shared values between members
New institutionalism defines institutions very broadly, requiring us to understand informal
institutions (‘the rules of the game’) as a prerequisite for analysing formal ones (the game
itself). Interest groups waging specific campaigns do not necessarily count as institutions,
but long-standing coalitions of interest groups (e.g. environmental groupings in Brussels)
might. In order to function, institutional groups should, supposedly, identify some
