Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T18:20:06.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Vivien A. Schmidt
Vivien A. Schmidt*
Affiliation:
Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration, Director, Center for International Relations, Department of International Relations, Boston, MA, USA
*
* E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All three of the traditionally recognized new institutionalisms – rational choice, historical, and sociological – have increasingly sought to ‘endogenize’ change, which has often meant a turn to ideas and discourse. This article shows that the approaches of scholars coming out of each of these three institutionalist traditions who take ideas and discourse seriously can best be classified as part of a fourth ‘new institutionalism’ – discursive institutionalism (DI) – which is concerned with both the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes of discourse in institutional context. It argues that this newest of the ‘new institutionalisms’ has the greatest potential for providing insights into the dynamics of institutional change by explaining the actual preferences, strategies, and normative orientations of actors. The article identifies the wide range of approaches that fit this analytic framework, illustrating the ways in which scholars of DI have gone beyond the limits of the traditional institutionalisms on questions of interests and uncertainty, critical junctures and incremental change, norms and culture. It defines institutions dynamically – in contrast to the older neo-institutionalisms’ more static external rule-following structures of incentives, path-dependencies, and cultural framing – as structures and constructs of meaning internal to agents whose ‘background ideational abilities’ enable them to create (and maintain) institutions while their ‘foreground discursive abilities’ enable them to communicate critically about them, to change (or maintain) them. But the article also points to areas for improvement in DI, including the theoretical analysis of processes of ideational change, the use of the older neo-institutionalisms for background information, and the incorporation of the power of interests and position into accounts of the power of ideas and discourse.

Keywords

ideasdiscoursediscursive institutionalismhistorical institutionalismrational choice institutionalismsociological institutionalism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aminzade, R.R., Goldstone, J.A., McAdam, D., Perry, E.J., Sewell, W.H. Jr., Tarry, S. Tilly, C. (2001), Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Art, D. (2006), The Politics of the Nazi Past in Germany and Austria, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baccaro, L., Papadakis, K. (2008), ‘The downside of participatory-deliberative public administration’. Paper presented at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University, Nov. 14, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensel, R. (2005), ‘A cross of gold, a crown of thorns’, in I. Katznelson and B.R. Weingast (eds), Preferences and Situations: Points of Intersection between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 27–61.Google Scholar
Berman, S. (1998), The Social Democratic Moment, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, M. (2002), Great Transformations, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, M. (2003), ‘Structures do not come with an instruction sheet: interests, ideas, and progress in political science’, Perspectives on Politics 1(4): 695–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, M. (2010), ‘Four (plus two) reasons to take ideas very seriously indeed’, in D. Beland and R. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Scientific Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press (in press).Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (1996), Public Deliberation – Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990), In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.L. (2004), Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.L. Pedersen, O. (2001), ‘Introduction’, in J.L. Campbell and O. Pedersen (eds), The Rise of NeoLiberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstensen, M.B. (n/a), ‘Ideas are not as stable as political scientists want them to be: using discourse theory in ideational analysis’, manuscript submitted for peer review.Google Scholar
Cerny, P. (1994), ‘The dynamics of financial globalization’, Policy Sciences 27(4): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, J. (1998), ‘The constructivist turn in international relations theory’, World Politics 50(2): 324–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D. Collier, R. (1991), Shaping the Political Arena, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. (2005), Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, P.D. (2005), ‘Institutional change in contemporary capitalism: coordinated financial systems since 1990’, World Politics 57(2): 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P.J. Powell, W.W. (eds) (1991), ‘Introduction’, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. (2004), ‘Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J.N. Lupia, A. (2006), ‘Mind, will, and choice’, in R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly (eds), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–113.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (ed.) (1998), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, C. (2008), The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, M. (1996), ‘Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology’s institutionalism’, International Organization 50(2): 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. (2003), Reframing Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N. Mara-Drita, I. (1996), ‘How to make a market: reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union’, American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. Wright, E.O. (2003), ‘Countervailing power in empowered participatory governance’, in A. Fung and E.O. Wright (eds), Deepening Democracy, New York: Verso, pp. 259–290.Google Scholar
Gofas, A. Hay, C. (eds) (2010), ‘The ideas debate in political analysis: towards a cartography and critical assessment’, in The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis, London: Routledge (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. (1993), Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. Keohane, R. (1993), Ideas and Foreign Policy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. Dryzek, J.S. (2006), ‘Deliberative impacts of mini-publics’, Politics and Society 32(2): 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. Tilly, C. (eds) (2006), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. Shapiro, I. (1994), The Pathologies of Rational Choice, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grief, A. Laitin, D.D. (2004), ‘A theory of endogenous institutional change’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P.M. (1992), ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organization 46(1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory, London: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. (2003), ‘A frame in the fields: policymaking and the reinvention of politics’, in M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar (eds), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. (1986), Governing the Economy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (ed.) (1989), ‘Conclusion’, in The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policy-making in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. Soskice, D. (eds) (2001), ‘Introduction’, in Varieties of Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. Taylor, R. (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(5): 952–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. (1982), Collective Action, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. Mills, J. (1999), Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, C. (2001), ‘The ‘crisis’ of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain: an ideational institutionalist approach’, in J.L. Campbell and O. Pedersen (eds), The Rise of NeoLiberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 193–218.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2006), ‘Constructivist institutionalism’, in R.A.W. Rhodes, S. Binder and B. Rockman (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–74.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. (2004), ‘Bargaining through arguing: an empirical analysis based on speech act theory’, Political Communication 21(2): 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, D., Norval, A.J. Stavrakakis, Y. (eds) (2000), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, T. Soskice, D. (2006), ‘Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others’, American Political Science Review 100(2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobert, B. (1989), ‘The normative frameworks of public policy’, Political Studies 37: 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2000), ‘Preface’, in D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (eds), Choice, Values, and Frames, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. ix–xvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, P.J. (1985), Small States in World Markets, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P.J. (ed.) (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Katznelson, I. Weingast, B. (eds) (2005), ‘Intersections between historical and rational choice institutionalism’, in Preferences and Situations, New York: Russel Sage, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Keck, M.E. Sikkink, K. (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kinderman, D. (2005), ‘Pressure from without, subversion from within: the two-pronged German employer offensive’, Comparative European Politics 3(4): 432–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. (1999), In the Name of Liberalism: Illiberal Social Policy in the United States and Britain, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kjaer, P. Pedersen, O. (2001), ‘Translating liberalization: neoliberalism in the Danish negotiated economy’, in J.L. Campbell and O.K. Pedersen (eds), The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 219–248.Google Scholar
Levi, M. (2006), ‘Why we need a new theory of government’, Perspectives on Politics 4(1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, R.C. (2005), Shaping Race Policy: The United States in Comparative Perspective, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (2005), Power, Second Edition: A Radical View, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. McCubbins, D.M. (1998), The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society 29(4): 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1983), Beyond Adversary Democracy, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (ed.) (1990), Beyond Self-Interest, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
March, J.G. Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mehta, J. (2010), ‘From “whether” to “how”: the varied role of ideas in politics’, in D. Beland and R. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Scientific Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press (in press).Google Scholar
Muller, P. (1995), ‘Les politiques publiques comme construction d’un rapport au monde’, in A. Faure, G. Pollet and P. Warin (eds), La Construction du Sens dans les Politiques Publiques: Débats autour de la notion de Référentiel, Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C., Sniderman, P.M. Brody, R.A. (1996), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palier, B. (2005), ‘Ambiguous agreement, cumulative change: French social policy in the 1990s’, in W. Streeck and K. Thelen (eds), Beyond Continuity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Petit, P. (2006), ‘Why and how philosophy matter to politics’, in R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly (eds), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–57.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rein, M. Schön, D.A. (1991), ‘Frame-reflective policy discourse’, in P. Wagner et al. (eds), Social Sciences, Modern States, National Experiences, and Theoretical Crossroads, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–289.Google Scholar
Risse, T. (2001), ‘Who are we? A Europeanization of national identities?’, in M.G. Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds), Transforming Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 198–216.Google Scholar
Roe, E. (1994), Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2005), Social Traps and the Problem of Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J. (1998), ‘What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge’, International Organization 52(4): 855–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quack, S. Djelic, M.-L. (2005), ‘Adaptation, recombination, and reinforcement: the story of antitrust and competition law in Germany and Europe’, in W. Streeck and K. Thelen (eds), Beyond Continuity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–281.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (eds) (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (1997), ‘European integration and democracy: the differences among member states’, Journal of European Public Policy 4(1): 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2000), ‘Values and discourse in the politics of adjustment’, in F.W. Scharpf and V.A. Schmidt (eds), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy Volume I: From Vulnerability to Competitiveness, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 229–309.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2002), The Futures of European Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2006), Democracy in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008), ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2009a), ‘Comparative institutional analysis’, in T. Landman and N. Robinson (eds), Handbook of Comparative Politics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2009b), ‘Putting the political back into political economy by bringing the state back yet again’, World Politics 61(3): 516–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I. (1999), ‘Enough about deliberation: politics is about interests and power’, in S. Macedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I. (2003), The State of Democratic Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. (1985), ‘Prospects for formal models of legislatures’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 10(1): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogstad, G. Schmidt, V.A. (n/a), ‘Introduction: internationalization and policy paradigms’, in G. Skogstad (ed.), Internationalization and Policy Paradigm Change (Unpublished mss).Google Scholar
Steinmo, S., Lewis, O. (n/a), ‘Taking evolution seriously’. Unpublished Mss.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. Longstreth, F. (eds) (1992), Structuring Politics Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. Thelen, K. (eds) (2005), Beyond Continuity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taleb, N.N., Pilpel, A. (2005), ‘On the very unfortunate problem of the nonobservability of the probability distribution’. Retrieved 8 November 2008 from http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/knowledge.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. (1999), ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’ in The Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, pp. 369–404, Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2004), How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, B. (1995), ‘A rational choice perspective on the role of ideas: shared belief systems, state sovereignty, and international cooperation’, Politics and Society 23(4): 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, M. (2006), ‘Labor identities and coalition building in the United States’. Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30–September 2, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1972), On Certainty, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1987), ‘The agent-structure problem in international relations theory’, International Organization 41(3): 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woll, C. (2008), Firm Interests: How Governments Shape Business Lobbying on Global Trade, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, A.S. (1996), ‘The causal effects of ideas on policies’, International Organization 50(1): 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, A.S. (1997), ‘Thick rationality and the missing ‘brute fact:’ the limits of rationalist incorporation of norms and ideas’, Journal of Politics 59(4): 1001–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. (1996), ‘Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy’, in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar