Ideas are Not as Stable as Political Scientists Want Them to Be: A Theory of Incremental Ideational Change

Abstract

Most theories about ideas in politics implicitly conceptualise ideas as relatively stable entities that act as a catalyst for political change in times of crisis. In these theories political change is usually brought on by the full and sudden replacement of old ideas with new ones. This article's main charge against the mainstream view of ideas is that it is based on a simplified conception of ideas which in turn creates a bias within the theories that leads them to focus on how ideas trigger change in times of crisis. In effect, the theories overlook incremental yet significant ideational change in times of stability.With inspiration from discourse theory and 'the interpretive approach', the article develops a more dynamic understanding of ideas as being composed of several related elements of meaning that typically do not reach a final stage of stability or equilibrium. Furthermore, it is argued that this theory of the micro structure of ideas can account for both incremental and paradigmatic ideational change. Two types of incremental ideational change are discussed and exemplified with empirical examples from British politics: first, a change in the relation between the existing elements of an idea and, second, a change of one or more (but not all) elements of an idea.

Governing Transformation towards Low-carbon Societies: An Ideational Perspective from Developing Countries

“…I argue that treating ideas and discourses as a form of political power underlying policy-making can provide explanations for the origins of transformational change and for how ideas about it define governance practices. Indeed, there is a need for further empirical analysis of how changes in ideas lead to significant political changes (Carstensen 2011). …”

“…The ideational approach has been applied to the analysis of politics, political behaviour and policy processes (Béland and Cox 2011;Campbell 2004;Lieberman 2002;Carstensen 2011). A view of ideas as relatively independent of interests and institutions has won a lot of advocates in the political science and international relationship disciplines (Fischer Hajer 1995;Blyth 1997;Hay 2001;Campbell 2002;Gillard et al 2016).…”

“…Ideational theorising approaches ideas as operating on multiple levels, as the overarching paradigms or tools of the bricoleur (Hall 1993;Campbell 2004;Carstensen 2011;Berman 2012), assuming different levels of causality between ideas, interests and institutional changes. In the framework of discursive institutionalism, ideas are accepted in different forms such as 'narratives, frames, frames of reference, discursive fields of ideas, argumentative practices, storytelling and collective memories' (Schmidt 2012: 86).…”

“…Understanding political institutions as embedded ideas, meaning structures and constructs (Schmidt 2010: 5;Béland and Cox 2011), policy as political ideas adopted by actors based on their conceptualisation of reality, interests as rooted in ideas and change as derived from the 'transformative power of ideas', this dissertation focuses on ideas in public policy as the key to transformational change. Ideas are conceptualised here as 'a web of related elements of meaning' (Carstensen 2011), and as represented through discursive manifestations (Schmidt 2010). …”

“…They serve as 'actors' ideational legitimation of their interpretation' (Carstensen andSchmidt 2016: 1033) of the sustainable development model. Climate change mitigation is framed as (i) an opportunity for development and modernisation, and (ii) part of green growth as a prerequisite and source of economic growth to secure socio-economic achievement of the reforms.…”