The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism

Abstract

The conventional critique of institutional theory, and especially historical institutionalism, is that it is incapable of coping with change. We argue for the importance of political conflict as a means of initiating change in an institutionalist framework. In particular, conflict over ideas and the underlying assumptions of policy is important for motivating change. We demonstrate the viability of this argument with examples of institutional change.Before Socrates there were two dominant philosophers whose writings attempted to explain the natural world. On the one hand Parmenides stressed permanence and the persistence of elements of the world. On the other hand, Heraclitus argued that "all is flux" and that the world is constantly changing. In many ways the study of public policy has progressed little since that time. One body of literature in policy studies emphasizes the persistence of policy and its "path dependency," while another equally important, if smaller, body of literature stresses the need to understand policy change. Both of these literatures are necessary for understanding policy, as there are definite elements of stability and change in most policy areas.The dominant strand of thinking in political science has assumed equilibrium, stability, and some ease in reaching consensus. This emphasis on equilibrium is true of approaches as disparate as much of rational choice analysis, systems theories, and a good deal of the international relations literature. Our concern in this paper is the way in which the persistence of institutions masks underlying dissensus over policy and programs. In theoretical terms the central analytic notion of "path dependency" in historical institutionalism may mask the dissensus that may exist beneath the surface of a program, or organizational field, and thus produce some neglect of the forces for change. Given that theory at once helps

The proliferation of multilateral development banks

“…In so doing, the model is guided by the complementarity of rational choice and historical institutionalism (Katznelson and Weingast 2005;Hall 2010). It rejects, however, the structural determinism expounded by some variants of the latter (Peters et al 2005(Peters et al : 1278. Instead, the theory places agency at the center of the analysis, thereby infusing historical institutionalism with the micro-foundations necessary for falsifiable hypotheses of institutional change and creation.…”

Institutional Role in Gunung Walat Educational Forest Policy: Discourse and Historical Approaches

“…The development of external actors who have a big role is needed to be observed. The external actors who have big role and the external actors who have not had important role now (community around HPGW and mining factory) can create interest alliance that can support (supporter) and can disturb ( -management policy at this time is affected and depend on the HPGW management policy in the past (Peters et al 2005), and those are: (1) decision of HPGW Head, (2) concept of sustainable forest management, and (3) pattern of HPGW outcome usage. The power of HPGW management today, in terms of finance and productivity of HPGW outcomes usage is not excluded from the foundation of HPGW management which has been formed in the past.…”

“…This research used the approach of analytical history (descriptive analysis) which is focusing on the problem (Kartodirdjo 1992) and discourse approach used critical ethods point of view (Eriyanto 2005) which criticized the hidden purpose and meaning (frame) in the social relation. Historical institutionalism approach is to analyze historical relation of HPGW by using historical-relation analysis (path dependency) from Peters et al (2005), where the policy which is created now, really depends on the policy which has been created in the past. This research methodology is a deep (serious) interview with source respondent who understand and master HPGW management policy the most.…”

National Transparency Regimes: Rules or Principles? A Comparative Analysis of the United States and The Netherlands

“…Institutions in this paper are "the rules and legacies associated with particular institutions or institutional arrangements" (Peters et al, 2005(Peters et al, , p. 1286). Institutional differences result in different approaches to democracy (Lijphart, 1977).…”

“…In order to study the origins and evolution of transparency regimes, we will build on the following elements as part of historical institutionalism (Peters et al, 2005): (a) the selection of initial paths and the political choices made at policy initiation, (b) the role of political actors, next to bureaucrats and policy makers, (c) the evolution of policy, (d) institutions and ideas, for instance, the influence of political parties as conduits for the expression of ideas, (e) the structure of an agency in terms of linking outcomes with actors and with processes that produced the outcome, and lastly (f) change. Change occurs because periods of path dependent stability can be interrupted by critical junctures (Copoccia and Kelemen, 2007).…”