The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology

Koelble, Thomas A.; Cook, Karen S.; Levi, Margaret; Granovetter, Mark; Swedberg, Richard; March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P.; Powell, Walter W.; DiMaggio, Paul; Steinmo, Sven; Thelen, Kathleen; Longstreth, Frank

doi:10.2307/422167

Cited by 243 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The different varieties of new institutionalism differ significantly in how they explain institutional origins, continuities and changes. Despite this, they share the same focus as well as a common set of concerns and assumptions (Schmidt 2008a, b;Thelen 1999;Hall and Taylor 1996;Koelble 1995;Immergut 1998). These differences and similarities between variants of new institutionalism allow for comparison of their explanatory prowess, in this case by applying them to a specific case.…”

Section: The Promise Of New Institutionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since institutions privilege some interests-as posited by the above-mentioned cultural approach-they can grant certain actors more access over the decision-making process, and thus more power, than others. Historical institutionalists argue that such power inequalities in turn influence the trajectories of institutional developments (or lack thereof) (Hall and Taylor 1996;Schmidt 2006Schmidt , 2008bImmergut 1998;Koelble 1995;Lowndes 2005;Steinmo 2001). Hence, power relations between actors are influenced by and at the same time influence the context in which they are played out, which can be seen as another instance of the way in which path dependency influences (lack of) institutional developments.…”

Section: Explaining the Persistence Of Institutional Structures: Powementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historical institutionalists believe that institutions provide ''moral and cognitive templates for interpretation and action'' (Hall and Taylor 1996;p. 939) by reinforcing some ideas or worldviews while undermining others (Koelble 1995;Jönsson and Tallberg 2008). Through this, institutions influence actors' behaviour not only by influencing the institutional context, and thus the ways in which their interests are maximised, but also by influencing actors' perceptions of what their interests and goals are (Koelble 1995).…”

Section: Explaining Incremental Institutional Change: Path Dependencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation

Vijge

2012

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past forty years, numerous proposals to improve the fragmented international environmental governance (IEG) system have been developed, many of which call for the establishment of an international environment organisation. Although governments and scholars agree that the system needs improvement, no such substantial reform has yet been undertaken. Based on the literature study and more than twenty interviews, this article explains the absence of an international environment organisation, using three theories of new institutionalism: historical, rational choice and discursive institutionalism. Through the notion of path dependency, historical institutionalism explains how the self-reinforcing cycle of a rather diffused development of the IEG system, characterised by incremental changes, has made the system more complicated and prevented substantial institutional change. Historical institutionalism also highlights power inequalities and lack of trust between nation-states, as well as turf wars between international organisations, as key explanatory factors hampering IEG reform. Rational choice institutionalism complements such explanations by showing how incremental institutional changes that do not add up to substantial reform are the result of the fact that neither nation-states nor international organisations are interested in establishing a powerful environment organisation that might encroach upon their sovereignty. Finally, discursive institutionalism suggests that the norm to do at least something to improve the IEG system has prompted nation-states to create ''symbolic'' institutions. The concept of socialisation helps to explain why incremental institutional developments within the UN system are more likely than substantial reform. The article shows that new institutionalism theories complement rather than contradict one another, resulting in a more holistic explanation of lack of IEG reform.

show abstract

Section: The Promise Of New Institutionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining the Persistence Of Institutional Structures: Powementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Incremental Institutional Change: Path Dependencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation

Vijge

2012

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So pervasive has the impact of institutionalism been that each of the social science disciplines now has its own 'new institutionalism' (Lowndes 1996;Koelble 1995). In economics, there have been a range of arguments about how and why institutions matter (Hodgson 1988).…”

Section: New Institutionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalism, 'Old' and 'New'

1994

The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is about how and why institutions matter in political life. More specifically, it is about how the behaviour of political actors is shaped and conditioned by the institutional contexts in which they operate. This perspective and question define the central concerns of the so-called 'new institutionalism' in political analysis.As a discipline, political science has always been able to legitimately claim that the study of two things, power and institutions, have been at the core of its concerns and contribution. Institutions are important, because, as entities, they form such a large part of the political landscape, and because modern governance largely occurs in and through institutions. Institutions also matter because they (or at least actors within them) typically wield power and mobilise institutional resources in political struggles and governance relationships. Institutions are also said to matter because they are seen as shaping and constraining political behaviour and decision making and even the perceptions and powers of political actors in a wide range of ways. Hence, in institutional terms, students of politics have analysed party systems, the rules of electoral competition, government bureaucracies, parliaments, constitutions, the judicial system, as well as large institutional complexes made up of the government and the gamut of public institutions we call the 'state' (Bell and Head 1984 ch 1; Fenna 1998: ch 2). There have also been extensive studies of supra-national institutional complexes such as the United Nations, the European Union and other international institutional regimes that help regulate economic relations, the environment or international trade (eg the World Trade Organisation).There have also been studies of 'non-state' institutions such as business corporations and trade unions.Although debate continues on how best to define institutions and institutional boundaries, it is probably best not to think of an institution as a 'thing' but as a process or set of processes which shape behaviour. My dictionary defines an institution as 'established law, custom or practice'. The reason why institutions matter is that laws, customs and established practices in institutional and organisational settings can play a powerful role in shaping the behaviour of individuals. There is broad agreement that in defining institutions in these terms we need to focus not only on formal institutions and practices but also on informal routines or relationships. Levi (1990: 409) argues that 'the most effective institutional arrangements incorporate a normative system of informal and internalised rules'. North (1990: 36) agrees and argues that the most significant institutional factors are often informal:

show abstract

“…The use of multiple conceptual frameworks rather than one framework will make it easier to explore the complex phenomenon of universal service. As Koelble (1995) argues, "Each theoretical lens has its advantages and disadvantages; each may be criticized as faulty from the perspective of the other approaches, but each also has a set of features superior to its competitors" (p. 243). This study will use both social capital theory and diffusion of innovations theory to construct a conceptual framework for universal service and to develop a universal service policy for eventual Korean reunification.…”

Section: A Conceptual Framework For Understanding Universal Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

South Korean Universal Service and Korean Reunification: A Policy Analysis

Bun-Hee¹

2005

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Scien

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology

Cited by 243 publications

References 0 publications

The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation

The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation

Institutionalism, 'Old' and 'New'

South Korean Universal Service and Korean Reunification: A Policy Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About