Historical+Institutionalism+in+Contemporary+Political+Science

This article describes and provides justification for historical institutionalism, contrasting it mainly with rational-choice theory and “survey-based behavioralism.” HI looks at big-picture, substantive questions (meso- to macro-level) that are of interest both to scholars and the general public (as opposed to “puzzles internally generated by their overarching theory” [p. 716] as in rational choice models). It is also concerned with processes of historical change, including looking at “slow-moving causal processes” (p. 703), taking time seriously in causal analysis. It looks at the macro context and the interaction of institutions and processes. It is particularly interested in critical junctures--times when two or more causal factors intersect. It also focuses on “organizational and institutional configurations.” Methodologically, HI moves back and forth among cases, questions, and theories, often using case studies or small-//n// comparisons and “mired in mere descriptions” (p. 718). There is a search for causation, not just description, but the causation can occur through a complex causal mechanism, as opposed to just a simple association of two variables. HI often bridges divides such as between normative approaches and empirical research. It’s interested in historical context as a means to improving theory and causal inference: “By examining a wider range of historical settings, an analyst can consider the possibility that supposedly universal effects in fact only hold under particular circumstances” (p. 699). This is in part due to “path dependence” meaning “the dynamics of self-reinforcing or positive feedback processes in a political system” (p. 699). Small changes during critical junctures can have big impacts, but over time the results become less and less changeable. HI uses “timing and sequence arguments to highlight //conjunctures//--interaction effects between distinct causal sequences that become joined at particular points in time” (p. 702). The institutionalism inherent in HI differs somewhat from that in the rational-choice tradition: HI regards political processes as not a mere collection of individual decisions (as in rational choice) but rather a reflection of an interplay of institutions. HI is interested in the creation and evolution of institutions, rejecting the “functionalist” assumption that institutions were created in order to solve the problems which in fact they now help solve [if I understood that right--p. 708]. HI research looks at multiple variables and context as they all interact with each other, unlike behavioralists who isolate single variables. HI theories tend to be time- and place-bounded; they don’t aim to explain all behavior at all time. Critiques of HI: Focus on small-//n// studies. Response: carefully designed case studies can still allow causal inference, plus the research accumulates so that one can look at a larger set of cases across studies. “[C]ritiques have had the salutary effect of prodding historical institutionalists to clarify and develop the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of their work” (p. 719). Importantly, some creative recent scholarship has combined HI with rational choice or behavioralism. [Incidentally--decent def. of behavioralism: “Behavioralists… are happy to use statistical techniques to analyze data from as many ‘cases’ as possible--often data from surveys of thousands of individuals--because they are prepared to assume that very general variables operating independently of one another come together to account for the patterns of behavior they are trying to explain” (p. 712).
 * Pierson and Skocpol **