Historical institutionalism
Historical institutionalism is a methodological approach within social sciences that focuses on understanding political, social, and economic changes through the lens of institutions. As a branch of new institutionalism, it emerged in the late 20th century, building on earlier research that shifted the focus from rules and laws to the institutions that shape human behavior and societal structures. Researchers in this field analyze how institutions—defined as organizations with formal or informal procedures—impact individual behaviors and broader societal outcomes.
The concept emphasizes the importance of historical context, suggesting that institutions tend to exhibit path dependence, meaning they remain stable over long periods but can undergo significant changes during critical junctures. These pivotal moments can radically alter the trajectory of institutions and, consequently, the societies they influence. Historical institutionalists apply their theories to real-world situations, using empirical data to formulate hypotheses about future events and to inform policy decisions. Overall, this approach provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between institutions and societal dynamics, making it relevant for examining complex issues like revolutions, economic crises, and social inequality.
On this Page
Historical institutionalism
Historical institutionalism is a social science method of analysis that helps people understand political, social, and economic changes in light of the institutions that affect them. Historical institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism, which is a broader methodological approach in the social sciences. New institutionalism grew out of new ideas about the study of social science that developed in the second half of the twentieth century. The idea behind historical institutionalism is that one has to understand the institutions in a particular society, area, or group to understand politics, society, and the economy more fully. Historical institutionalists often define institutions as any organization that has formal or informal procedures and conventions and organized structures.
Background
Historical institutionalism is a branch of new institutionalism. New institutionalism, which is also called neoinstitutionalism, is a methodology for studying political science and sociology. This methodology started to become popular in the United States in the 1980s. This field of study and research grew out of the work of behavioral researchers, who believed that people's behavior, not policies and laws, had the greatest effect on social issues. These researchers influenced traditional scholars in economics, political science, and sociology. Behavioral research became more popular in the United States in the 1950s and 60s. Before that, traditionalist scholars dominated most fields of social science in twentieth-century America. These traditionalist scholars mostly studied the rules and laws that affected politics and other fields of social science. However, the study of only rules and laws was not very accurate. The behaviorists wanted to make the study of social science more similar to the study of science, with empirical studies and the generation of data. Therefore, researchers began focusing less on the laws and rules of particular societies and began studying the people and institutions that shaped the laws and society. During the twentieth century, social scientists stopped questioning whether institutions affect society and started questioning how institutions affect society. This gave rise to new institutionalism.
As social scientists began focusing on institutions and their effects on society, different branches of new institutionalism emerged. Historical, rational choice, and sociological institutional analysis soon emerged. These three branches are all considered new institutionalism, yet each has very different ideas about the world. One of the differences among the three branches is the way they view the relationship between institutions and people. Another difference is the way they view the nature of change in institutions.
Overview
The term historical institutionalism was first used in the 1990s, but people have been studying the effects of institutions on individuals and societies for almost as long as humans have been making political observations. For example, in Plato's famous work The Republic, he explains different forms of government and notes how institutions affect politics. Modern historical institutionalism started to form in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States.
When historical institutionalism was first studied and practiced, researchers often used it to determine how large institutions affected major aspects of society. For example, researchers studied how institutions affected the origins of the state and how they contributed to major societal inequalities. Over time, however, historical institutionalism was used more broadly. Researchers began studying institutions of all different sizes to determine their influence. In the twenty-first century, researchers study institutions at the local, national, and international levels to understand how they affect individuals and the world.
Historical institutionalism focuses on the effects of institutions on individuals as well as politics, the economy, and society. Researchers who use historical institutionalism to conduct their analyses believe that politics is guided mostly by different groups that are battling for scarce resources. For example, a judiciary and a legislature are battling for power over the governing process. Historical institutionalists also generally believe that the structure of institutions has a great effect on individuals' actions. They believe that institutions affect the way people view themselves and others. Institutions provide people with expectations about others' actions and about themselves. Therefore, in the view of historical institutionalists, people's actions are greatly dependent on the institutions with which they interact. This is important because it helps researchers understand how power is distributed in societies and how institutions shape outcomes. Because of this, many historical institutionalists believe they are well suited to researching the origins and effects of important and complex events such as revolutions, economic crises, and persistent social inequality.
Many researchers who use historical institutionalism in their social science analyses include ideas about path dependence and critical junctures in their work. The idea of path dependence is that institutions, in general, have stability and remain very similar for long periods. They remain on the same path for many years. Nevertheless, great changes can occur in an institution. These periods of great changes are often referred to as critical junctures. When an institution faces a critical juncture, it often changes a great deal. Consequently, that institution can cause change in other parts of society. The decisions that are made by institutions and their leaders at critical junctures have long-lasting effects. When an institution is at a critical juncture, the choices that leaders make will lead the institution down one path at the exclusion of other paths. Researchers who analyze path dependence and critical junctures often examine how the not chosen paths may have differently affected the institution and society. These types of analysis are important for understanding the events, choices, and circumstances that influence social science and can be used to make hypotheses and theories about future events.
Historical institutionalists often seek to apply their ideas to real-world circumstances. Just like all new institutionalists, historical institutionalists believe in practicing studies with real data, creating something similar to other sciences. For example, they can use data on historical voting patterns to make hypotheses about the outcomes of future elections. This application to the real world allows historical institutionalists to use their work to influence leaders and affect policy in institutions such as government.
Bibliography
Capoccia, Giovanni. "Critical Junctures and Institutional Change." University of Oxford, users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0073/Writings%20pdf/Critical%20Junctures%20and%20Institutional%20Change%20final.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
Capoccia, Giovanni, and R. Daniel Kelemen. "The Study of Critical Junctures Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism." World Politics, vol. 59, 2007, pp. 341-369.
Christiansen, Thomas, and Amy Verdun. "Historical Institutionalism in the Study of European Integration." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 19 Nov. 2020, doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.178. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms." Political Studies, vol. 44, 1996, pp. 936-957.
Immergut, Ellen M. "Historical-Institutionalism in Political Science and the Problem of Change." Understanding Change: Models, Methodologies, and Metaphors, edited by Andreas Wimmer and Reinhart Kössler, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2006.
Fioretos, Orfeo, et al., editors. The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Plaček, Michal, et al. "Historical Institutionalism: A Tool for Researching the Nonprofit Sector in Times of Pandemic." Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 37, no. 4, 2022, pp. 926-940. Taylor & Francis Online, doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2052027. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
Steinmo, Sven. "What Is Historical Institutionalism?" Approaches in the Social Sciences, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Thelen, Kathleen. "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics." Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 369-404.