Historical institutionalism

Last updated

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach [1] that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. [2] [3] Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. [4] [5] [6] [7] Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history (longer temporal horizons) to understand why specific events happen. [8]

Contents

The term "Historical Institutionalism" began appearing in publications in the early 1990s, although it had been used in the late 1980s. [9] The most widely cited historical institutionalist scholars are Peter Hall, Paul Pierson, Theda Skocpol, Douglass North, and Kathleen Thelen. [10] Prominent works of historical institutionalist scholarship have used both sociological and rationalist methods. [11] [5] [12] Due to a focus on events involving causal complexity (equifinality, complex interaction effects and path dependency), [13] [14] historical institutionalist works tend to employ detailed comparative case studies. [15]

Old and new institutionalism

Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo contrast New Institutionalism with "Old Institutionalism", which was overwhelmingly focused on detailed narratives of institutions, with little focus on comparative analyses. Thus, the Old Institutionalism was unhelpful for comparative research and explanatory theory. This "Old Institutionalism" began to be undermined when scholars increasingly highlighted how the formal rules and administrative structures of institutions were not accurately describing the behavior of actors and policy outcomes. [16]

Works, such as Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, Theda Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions , Philippe Schmitter's Still a Century of Corporatism?, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, and Evans, Ruschemeyer and Skocpol's Bringing the State Back In have been characterized as precursors to Historical Institutionalism, [8] [17] [18] [19] spawning a new research program.

Historical institutionalism is a predominant approach in research on the welfare state. [20] [21] In the field of International Relations, John Ikenberry's After Victory and Abraham Newman's Protectors of Privacy are prominent works of historical institutionalist scholarship. [17]

The treatment of history

Unlike most western scholars who preceded them, including classical liberals, classical Marxists, empiricists, dialectical thinkers and positivists, historical institutionalists do not accept that history necessarily develops in a straightforward, linear fashion. Instead, they examine the conditions under which a particular trajectory was followed and not others, a phenomenon that Gabriel Almond refers to as the "historical cure". [22] As a consequence, specifying why particular paths were not taken is as important as specifying the actual trajectory of history.

As opposed to the old institutionalists, they postulate that history will not necessarily lead to a "happy" outcome (i.e. "fascism or democracy as the end of history").

Historical institutionalist works tend to reject functionalist accounts of institutions. [7] [23] Therefore, they are suspicious of explanations for the emergence of institutions that work backwards from the functions of institutions to their origins. [23] Historical institutionalists tend to see origins behind the creation of institutions as the result of conflict and contestation, which then gets locked in and persists, even if the circumstances that resulted in the institution change. [7]

Mechanisms of institutional stability

The concept of path dependence is essential to historical institutionalist analyses. [24] [25] [26] [27] Due to path dependence, institutions may have considerable stability and "stickiness", even in situations when the institutional leads to suboptimal arrangements. For Paul Pierson, path dependence entails that “outcomes at a ‘critical juncture’ trigger feedback mechanisms [negative or positive] that reinforce the recurrence of a particular pattern into the future.” Thus, path dependence makes it harder to reverse once a certain path has been taken, because there are increased costs to switching from the path. These paths may lead to outcomes are inefficient, but nonetheless persist, because of the costs involved in making substantial overhauls. An example of this is the QWERTY keyboard layout, which was efficient for typewriters to prevent jams in the 19th century and was implemented in computer keyboards in the 20th century. However, the QWERTY keyboard is arguably not as efficient as a computer keyboard could be, but the keyboard layout has persisted over time due to the costs involved in overhauling computer keyboards. [4] Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that other approaches to institutions may fall guilty of treating politics as if it were the film Groundhog Day where each day the participants just start over; in reality, past politics and policy legacies shape the interests, incentives, power and organizational abilities of political actors. [28]

According to Paul Pierson, the following factors contribute to institutional stability: [29]

These factors entail that actors have devoted resources into developing certain institution-specific skills and are unlikely to expend resources on alternative institutions. [30]

A related crux of historical institutionalism is that temporal sequences matter: outcomes depend upon the timing of exogenous factors (such as inter-state competition or economic crisis) in relation to particular institutional configurations (such as the level of bureaucratic professionalism or degree of state autonomy from class forces). For example, Theda Skocpol suggests that the democratic outcome of the English Civil War was a result of the fact that the comparatively weak English Crown lacked the military capacity to fight the landed upper-class. In contrast, the rise of rapid industrialization and fascism in Prussia when faced with international security threats was because the Prussian state was a “highly bureaucratic and centralized agrarian state” composed by “men closely ties to landed notables”. [31] Thomas Ertman, in his account of state building in medieval and early modern Europe, argues that variations in the type of regime built in Europe during this period can be traced to one macro-international factor and two historical institutional factors. At the macro-structural level, the “timing of the onset of sustained geopolitical competition” created an atmosphere of insecurity that appeared best addressed by consolidating state power. The timing of the onset of competition is critical for Ertman's explanation. States that faced competitive pressures early had to consolidate through patrimonial structures, since the development of modern bureaucratic techniques had not yet arrived. States faced with competitive pressures later on the other hand, could take advantage of advancements in training and knowledge to promote a more technically oriented civil service. [32] [33]

An important element to historical institutionalism is that it may cement certain distributions of power or increase asymmetries of power through policy feedbacks, "lock in" effects and stickiness. [2] For example, France has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because of its power and status at the end of World War II, yet it would likely not get a permanent seat if the UN Security Council were re-designed decades later. [2]

Mechanisms of institutional change

Historical institutionalists have identified major shocks, such as wars and revolutions, as important factors that lead to institutional change because those shocks create "critical junctures" whereby certain path dependencies get created. One prominent account in this vein is John Ikenberry's work on international orders which argues that after major wars, the dominant powers set up world orders that are favorable to their interests. [34]

Aside from shocks, historical institutionalists have also identified numerous factors that subtly lead to institutional change. [35] These include:

As part of these subtle changes, there may be widespread noncompliance with the formal rules of an institution, prompting change. [35] There may also be shifts in the balance of power between the social coalitions that comprise the institution. [35] [44]

Reception

Historical institutionalism is not a unified intellectual enterprise (see also new institutionalism). Some scholars are oriented towards treating history as the outcome of rational and purposeful behavior based on the idea of equilibrium (see rational choice). They rely heavily on quantitative approaches and formal theory. Others, more qualitative oriented scholars, reject the idea of rationality and instead emphasize the idea that randomness and accidents matter in political and social outcomes. [5] There are unsolvable epistemological differences between both approaches. [45] However given the historicity of both approaches, and given their focus on institutions, both can fall under "historical institutionalism".

Munck argues that work that emphasizes critical junctures as causes has two problems: (i) the problem of infinite regress (the notion that the cause of events can constantly be pushed back further in time), and (ii) the problem of distal non-recurring causes (convincingly arguing that a distant non-recurring event caused a much later event). [46]

Avner Greif and David Laitin have criticized the notion of increased returns. [47]

Sociological institutionalists and ideational scholars have criticized versions of Historical Institutionalism that adopt materialist and rationalist ontologies. [10] Scholars who use ideational approaches argue that institutional change occurs during episodes when institutions are perceived be failing (such as during economic crises) or during episodes of uncertainty, as this creates room for an exchange of ideas and a receptivity for institutional change. [10] [48] [49] [50] Political scientists such as Henry Farrell, Martha Finnemore, Mark Blyth, Oddny Helgadóttir, and William Kring argue that Historical Institutionalism has over time tended to engage more with rational choice institutionalism than with sociological institutionalism. [18] [10] Vincent Pouliot similarly writes that "soft rational choice... informs most versions of [Historical Institutionalism]." [38] According to Michael Zurn, Historical institutionalism "lacks a theory of action." [51]

In Paradigms and Sand Castles, an influential book on research design in comparative politics, Barbara Geddes argues that there are methodological limits to the kind of path-dependent arguments that is often found in Historical Institutionalist research. [52] She argues that it is hard to rule out rival explanations for a proposed outcome and to precisely identify one purported critical juncture or another. [52]

Major institutionalist scholars and books

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institution</span> Structure or mechanism of social order

An institution is a humanly devised structure of rules and norms that shape and constrain individual behavior. All definitions of institutions generally entail that there is a level of persistence and continuity. Laws, rules, social conventions and norms are all examples of institutions. Institutions vary in their level of formality and informality.

Neo institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups. New institutionalism traditionally encompasses three major strands: sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. New institutionalism originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.

Path dependence is a concept in the social sciences, referring to processes where past events or decisions constrain later events or decisions. It can be used to refer to outcomes at a single point in time or to long-run equilibria of a process. Path dependence has been used to describe institutions, technical standards, patterns of economic or social development, organizational behavior, and more.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative politics</span> Field in political science

Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be referred to by other names, such as comparative government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrington Moore Jr.</span> American sociologist (1913–2005)

Barrington Moore Jr. was an American political sociologist, and the son of forester Barrington Moore.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theda Skocpol</span> American sociologist and political scientist (born 1947)

Theda Skocpol is an American sociologist and political scientist, who is currently the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. She is best known as an advocate of the historical-institutional and comparative approaches, as well as her "state autonomy theory". She has written widely for both popular and academic audiences. She has been President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association.

<i>States and Social Revolutions</i> 1979 book by Theda Skocpol

States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China is a 1979 book by Theda Skocpol, published by Cambridge University Press, that examines the causes of social revolutions.

Michael Nathan Barnett is a professor of international relations at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. Known for his Constructivist approach, his scholarship and research has been in the areas of international organizations, international relations theory, and Middle Eastern politics.

Institutionalist political economy, also known as institutional political economy or IPE, refers to a body of political economy, thought to stem from the works of institutionalists such as Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, Wesley Mitchell and John Dewey. It emphasizes the impact of historical and socio-political factors on the evolution of economic practices, often opposing more rational approaches. In the political sense, this implies the influences actors like the state have on socio-economic practices and the shaping of institutions via political decision-making.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Pierson</span> American political scientist

Paul Pierson is an American professor of political science specializing in comparative politics and holder of the John Gross Endowed Chair of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. From 2007-2010 he served at UC Berkeley as Chair of the Department of Political Science. He is noted for his research on comparative public policy and political economy, the welfare state, and American political development. His works on the welfare state and historical institutionalism have been characterized as influential.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vivien A. Schmidt</span> American academic

Vivien A. Schmidt is an American academic of political science and international relations. At Boston University, she is the Jean Monnet Chair of European Integration Professor of International Relations in the Pardee School of Global Studies, and Professor of Political Science. She is known for her work on political economy, policy analysis, democratic theory, and new institutionalism. She is a 2018 recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and has been named a Chevalier in the French Legion of Honor.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical approach to the study of institutions arguing that actors use institutions to maximize their utility, and that institutions affect rational individual behavior. Rational choice institutionalism arose initially from the study of congressional behaviour in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Influential early RCI scholarship was done by political economists at California Institute of Technology, University of Rochester, and Washington University. It employs analytical tools borrowed from neo-classical economics to explain how institutions are created, the behaviour of political actors within it, and the outcome of strategic interaction.

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." Its explanations are constructivist in nature. According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism

treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character.

<i>Varieties of Capitalism</i> Book by David Soskice and Peter A. Hall

Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage is a 2001 book on economics, political economy, and comparative politics edited by political economists Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. The book established an influential debate among political economists about ways to categorize, qualify and analyze different ways in which economies are organized.

Feminist institutionalism is a new institutionalist approach that looks at how gender norms operate within institutions and how institutional processes construct and maintain gender power dynamics. Feminist institutionalism focuses on how institutions are gendered and how their formal and informal rules play a part in shaping political life. It offers a new way of interpreting the formation of institutions that goes beyond traditional views by accounting for the gendered stigma and gendered outcomes that comes with institutions. As a result, feminist institutionalism is changing the face of various institutions by providing awareness into their very own dynamics of inclusion and exclusion.

Kathleen Thelen is an American political scientist specializing in comparative politics. She is the Ford Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a permanent external member of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), and a faculty associate at the Center for European Studies (CES) at Harvard University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sven Steinmo</span>

Sven Holger Steinmo is a professor of political science at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He obtained his BA from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his MA, MPH, and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. His primary teaching and research interests are in the realm of institutional theory, comparative public policy, and comparative historical analysis. Steinmo has also researched how political and economic institutions grew and currently operate within various developed democracies, such as Sweden and Japan, while utilizing the perspectives found in evolutionary theory. He is widely recognized for his work in institutional theory, having been one of the founders of the subfield of historical institutionalism. His book with Kathleen Thelen, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism and Comparative Analysis (1992), is academically notable, and is a significant contribution within that domain of research.

Critical juncture theory focuses on critical junctures, i.e., large, rapid, discontinuous changes, and the long-term causal effect or historical legacy of these changes. Critical junctures are turning points that alter the course of evolution of some entity. Critical juncture theory seeks to explain both (1) the historical origin and maintenance of social order, and (2) the occurrence of social change through sudden, big leaps.

Marion Fourcade is a French sociologist. She is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. She is known for her work on the sociology and history of the field of economics, as well as her work on digital society and digital economy.

References

  1. ↑ Steinmo, Sven (2008). "Historical institutionalism". In Della Porta, Donatella; Keating, Michael (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. pp. 118–138. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801938.008. ISBN   9780511801938 . Retrieved 2020-03-05.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  2. 1 2 3 Voeten, Erik (2019). "Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 147–163. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-021108 . ISSN   1094-2939.
  3. ↑ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2010). "Making global markets: Historical institutionalism in international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 17 (4): 609–638. doi:10.1080/09692291003723672. ISSN   0969-2290. S2CID   153647117.
  4. 1 2 Pierson, Paul (2000). "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics". American Political Science Review. 94 (2): 251–267. doi:10.2307/2586011. hdl: 1814/23648 . ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2586011. S2CID   154860619.
  5. 1 2 3 Steinmo, S; Thelen, K; Longstreth, F, eds. (1992), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  6. ↑ Capoccia, Giovanni; Kelemen, R. Daniel (2007). "The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism". World Politics. 59 (3): 341–369. doi: 10.1017/S0043887100020852 . ISSN   1086-3338.
  7. 1 2 3 Thelen, Kathleen; Conran, James (2016). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G.; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). Institutional Change. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.013.3. ISBN   978-0-19-966281-4.
  8. 1 2 Katznelson, Ira (2007). Preferences and Situations : Points of Intersection Between Historical and Rational Choice In. Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 1–26. ISBN   978-1-61044-333-3. OCLC   945610829.
  9. ↑ Mahoney, James (2017). "Shift Happens: The Historical Institutionalism of Kathleen Thelen". PS: Political Science & Politics. 50 (4): 1115–1119. doi: 10.1017/S1049096517001494 . ISSN   1049-0965.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Blyth, Mark; Helgadottir, Oddny; Kring, William (2016-05-02). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). "Ideas and Historical Institutionalism". Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.013.8.
  11. ↑ "Historical Institutionalism and International Relations". E-International Relations. 16 April 2012. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
  12. ↑ Hall, Peter A.; Taylor, Rosemary C. R. (1996). "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms". Political Studies. 44 (5): 936–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0012-59C1-5 . ISSN   0032-3217. S2CID   3133316.
  13. ↑ George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-30307-1. OCLC   944521872.
  14. ↑ Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. pp. 61–62. ISBN   978-0-521-85928-8.
  15. 1 2 Pierson, Paul (1993). "When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change". World Politics. 45 (4): 595–628. doi:10.2307/2950710. ISSN   0043-8871. JSTOR   2950710. S2CID   154900007.
  16. ↑ "Structuring politics historical institutionalism comparative analysis". Cambridge University Press. 1992. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 2020-02-29.
  17. 1 2 Fioretos, Orfeo (2011). "Historical Institutionalism in International Relations". International Organization. 65 (2): 367–399. doi:10.1017/S0020818311000002. ISSN   1531-5088. S2CID   145270225.
  18. 1 2 Farrell, Henry; Finnemore, Martha (2016). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G.; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). Global Institutions without a Global State. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.013.34. ISBN   978-0-19-966281-4.
  19. ↑ Béland, Daniel; Campbell, Andrea Louise; Weaver, R. Kent (2022). "Policy Feedback: How Policies Shape Politics". Cambridge University Press: 2. doi: 10.1017/9781108938914 . ISBN   9781108938914.
  20. ↑ Lynch, Julia; Rhodes, Martin (2016-05-02). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G.; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). Historical Institutionalism and the Welfare State. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.013.25. ISBN   978-0-19-966281-4.
  21. ↑ Katznelson, Ira (1998). "The Doleful Dance of Politics and Policy: Can Historical Institutionalism Make a Difference?". American Political Science Review. 92 (1): 191–197. doi:10.2307/2585938. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   2585938. S2CID   147672846.
  22. ↑ Almond, Gabriel (1956), "Comparative Political Systems", Journal of Politics, 18 (3): 391–409, doi:10.2307/2127255, JSTOR   2127255, S2CID   145761427 .
  23. 1 2 Thelen, Kathleen (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. ISBN   978-0-521-54674-4.
  24. ↑ Irving, Lichbach Mark; Zuckerman, Alan S. (1997-08-28). Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-58668-9.
  25. ↑ Mahoney, James; Schensul, Daniel (2006-03-16). "Historical Context and Path Dependence". Oxford Handbooks Online: 454–471. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270439.003.0024. ISBN   0199270430.
  26. ↑ Mahoney, James (2000). "Path Dependence in Historical Sociology". Theory and Society. 29 (4): 507–548. doi:10.1023/A:1007113830879. ISSN   0304-2421. JSTOR   3108585. S2CID   145564738.
  27. ↑ Christiansen, Thomas; Verdun, Amy (2020). "Historical Institutionalism in the Study of European Integration". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.178. ISBN   978-0-19-022863-7.
  28. ↑ Hacker, Jacob S.; Pierson, Paul (2014). "After the "Master Theory": Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 643–662. doi:10.1017/s1537592714001637. ISSN   1537-5927. S2CID   154841537.
  29. ↑ Pierson, Paul (2000). "The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change". Governance. 13 (4): 475–499. doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00142. ISSN   0952-1895.
  30. ↑ Pierson, Paul (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-11715-7.
  31. ↑ Skocpol, Theda (1973), "A Critical Review of Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy", Politics and Society, 4 (1): 1–34, doi:10.1177/003232927300400101, S2CID   143910152 .
  32. ↑ Thomas, Ertman (1997), Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. ↑ Whitehead, Richard (2002, October). “In Debate: The Casual Focus of Historical Institutionalism”. Paper presented at Temple University course seminar on Authoritarian Regimes, Philadelphia, PA.
  34. ↑ Ikenberry, G. John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars, New Edition. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-16921-7.
  35. 1 2 3 Capoccia, Giovanni (2016). "When Do Institutions "Bite"? Historical Institutionalism and the Politics of Institutional Change". Comparative Political Studies. 49 (8): 1095–1127. doi:10.1177/0010414015626449. ISSN   0010-4140. S2CID   146602221.
  36. 1 2 3 4 Mahoney, James; Thelen, Kathleen, eds. (2009), "A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change", Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–18, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806414.003, ISBN   978-0-521-11883-5
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 Streeck, Wolfgang; Thelen, Kathleen Ann (2005). Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford University Press. pp. 19–31. ISBN   978-0-19-928046-9.
  38. 1 2 Pouliot, Vincent (2020). "Historical Institutionalism Meets Practice Theory: Renewing the Selection Process of the United Nations Secretary-General". International Organization. 74 (4): 742–772. doi:10.1017/S002081832000020X. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   225798719.
  39. ↑ Schickler, Eric (2001). Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-04926-7. JSTOR   j.ctt7rr34.
  40. 1 2 3 Thelen, Kathleen (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-54674-4.
  41. ↑ Bleich, Erik (2018). "Historical Institutionalism and Judicial Decision-Making: Ideas, Institutions, and Actors in French High Court Hate Speech Rulings". World Politics. 70 (1): 53–85. doi:10.1017/S0043887117000272. ISSN   0043-8871. S2CID   158916987.
  42. ↑ Hacker, Jacob S. (2004). "Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States". The American Political Science Review. 98 (2): 243–260. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001121. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   4145310. S2CID   14798241.
  43. ↑ Streeck, Wolfgang (2010). Re-Forming Capitalism: Institutional Change in the German Political Economy. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-161445-3.
  44. ↑ Mahoney, James; Thelen, Kathleen, eds. (2009), "A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change", Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–10, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806414.003, ISBN   978-0-521-11883-5
  45. ↑ Bates, Robert; et al., Analytic Narratives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  46. ↑ Munck, Gerardo L. (2022). "The Theoretical Foundations of Critical Juncture Research: Critique and Reconstruction". Critical Junctures and Historical Legacies. Rowman and Littlefield. SSRN   3889801.
  47. ↑ Greif, Avner; Laitin, David D. (2004). "A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change". American Political Science Review. 98 (4): 633–652. doi:10.1017/s0003055404041395. ISSN   0003-0554. S2CID   1983672.
  48. ↑ Farrell, Henry; Quiggin, John (2017-06-01). "Consensus, Dissensus, and Economic Ideas: Economic Crisis and the Rise and Fall of Keynesianism". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (2): 269–283. doi: 10.1093/isq/sqx010 . ISSN   0020-8833.
  49. ↑ Hall, Peter A. (1993). "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain". Comparative Politics. 25 (3): 275–296. doi:10.2307/422246. ISSN   0010-4159. JSTOR   422246.
  50. ↑ Blyth, Mark (2013). "Paradigms and Paradox: The Politics of Economic Ideas in Two Moments of Crisis". Governance. 26 (2): 197–215. doi:10.1111/gove.12010. ISSN   1468-0491.
  51. ↑ Zürn, Michael (2016), Rixen, Thomas; Viola, Lora Anne; Zürn, Michael (eds.), "Historical Institutionalism and International Relations—Strange Bedfellows?", Historical Institutionalism and International Relations, Oxford University Press, pp. 199–228, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198779629.003.0008, ISBN   978-0-19-877962-9
  52. 1 2 Geddes, Barbara (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. University of Michigan Press. pp. 140–141. doi:10.3998/mpub.11910. ISBN   978-0-472-09835-4. JSTOR   10.3998/mpub.11910.

Further reading

  1. ↑ Historical Institutionalism and International Relations: Explaining Institutional Development in World Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 2016-08-09. ISBN   978-0-19-877962-9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.