Institutional approach is a perspective in social sciences that focuses on the impact of formal and informal rules, norms, and organizations on human behavior and societal outcomes. It examines how institutions, such as governments, laws, and cultural traditions, shape individuals’ actions and influence economic, political, and social development.
Introduction
In the field of political science, different approaches and methodologies are employed to analyze and comprehend the complexities of political systems. One such approach that has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of governance is the Institutional Approach. This method emphasizes the significance of formal structures and governmental agencies in the political landscape. In this article, we will delve into the intricacies of the Institutional Approach, explore its pioneers, and discuss its limitations and criticism. Furthermore, we will shed light on the evolution of this approach into the New Institutional Approach, which emerged as a response to some of the limitations of the traditional Institutional Approach.
Table of Contents
Institutional Approach – Traditional Approach
The Institutional Approach, as the name suggests, places great importance on the formal structures and agencies of government. It is rooted in the belief that institutions have an autonomy and independent behavior pattern of their own, which may subordinate individual preferences. The influence of history, culture, situations, and circumstances are integral components of this approach. It is characterized by a preoccupation with constitutions, legal-formal institutions of government, and the normative values of liberal democracy. Leo Strauss and A.V Dicey advocated this approach in contemporary times.
Evolution of Institutional Approach
The Institutional approach often referred to the traditional approach to comparative politics emerged in Europe. This approach marked the beginning of Comparative Politics.
The traditional approach to comparative political analysis was initially limited to the examination of institutions, a practice rooted in the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle, in fact, dispatched his students around the world to scrutinize different political systems and constitutions. These scholars then compared their findings, marking the inception of comparative politics. At this early stage, the discipline was marked by a close relationship between factual observations and value judgments. The central focus was on identifying the most ideal states and exploring the various forms of governance worldwide. The discipline primarily relied on establishing expectations, pondering over “what should be” rather than delving into the practical aspects of how governance functions.
The 16th century saw a transformation in this field when scholars like Machiavelli brought fresh perspectives into the arena by comparing different forms of government from monarchy to republicanism in his famous work, “Discourses on Livy.” By the mid-18th century, Montesquieu, renowned for his work “The Spirit of Laws,” emphasized the importance of empirical details in comparative political analysis. However, it was Alexis de Tocqueville who truly revolutionized the discipline by bridging the gap between theoretical concepts and the practical workings of governments. Tocqueville’s experiences served as a precursor to what later evolved into the institutional approach to comparative political analysis.
The Institutional approach to comparative politics received significant contributions in the late 19th century, with scholars like Bryce, Lowell, Ostrogorski playing a pivotal role in the comparative study of institutions. Their work continued to evolve towards the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. Notable works during this period include “The American Commonwealth” and “Modern Democracies” by James Bryce, where Bryce’s primary focus was on democracy and a detailed examination of legislative processes.
Features of Institutional approach
Until the 1950s, the Institutional Approach stood as the dominant paradigm in comparative politics. This approach was characterized by several key features and was primarily focused on the study of formal institutional structures. Here are the main features of the Institutional Approach:
- The Institutional Approach held a position of exclusivity in comparative politics for much of its history. It was the predominant framework used to analyze political systems.
- Harman Finer’s “Theory and Practice of Governance,” published in 1932, and Carl Friedrich’s “Constitutional Government and Democracy,” also published in 1932, were among the most influential works in this field.
- The Institutional Approach had a strong emphasis on the study of formal institutional structures. It focused on the legal aspects of these structures and delved into the study of laws and constitutions.
- This approach also involved the historical study of governments and states. Scholars analyzed the evolution of political systems over time, examining how institutions developed and changed.
- The Institutional Approach paid particular attention to the legal and constitutional aspects of political systems. Researchers examined the fundamental laws and constitutional principles that shaped governance.
- Another central aspect of the Institutional Approach was the examination of sovereignty. Scholars investigated how the concept of sovereignty was defined and practiced in different political systems.
- The distribution of power among various governmental organs, the structure of the judiciary, and the bureaucracy were areas of particular interest for scholars following the Institutional Approach.
Overall, the Institutional Approach in comparative politics was characterized by its historical, legal, and constitutional focus. It emphasized the study of formal institutional structures, sovereignty, and the distribution of power within governmental bodies. While it was the dominant paradigm for much of its history, it eventually gave way to new approaches and perspectives in the field of comparative politics.
Pioneers of Institutional Approach and their important works:
Several notable scholars have contributed to the development and refinement of the Institutional Approach. Some of the pioneers include:
Lord James Bryce: His works, “The American Commonwealth” (1888) and “Modern Democracies” (1921), explored the functioning of democratic systems.
A. Lawrence Lowell: In “Government and Parties in Continental Europe” (1896) and “Public Opinion and Popular Government” (1913), Lowell conducted extensive studies of political systems in France, Germany, and Switzerland.
Moisei Ostrogorski: In “Democracy and Organization of Political Parties” (1902), Ostrogorski examined the role of political parties in democratic governance.
Harman Finer: His book, “Theory and Practice of Modern Government” (1932), contributed significantly to the understanding of modern government systems.
Carl Friedrich: Friedrich’s “Constitutional Government and Democracy” (1968) delved into the constitutional aspects of democratic governance.
Limitations and Criticisms of Institutional Approach
Despite its contributions, the Institutional Approach has faced criticisms and limitations. In the 1950s, scholars like David Easton and Roy Macridis raised concerns about its scope and methodology. They described the approach as non-comparative, parochial, static, prescriptive and monographic. The criticism extended to its limited focus on well-established Western democracies i.e Ethnocentric in nature and its inability to capture the real currents of political and social change, often better understood by informal mechanisms.
The New Institutional Approach
As a response to these limitations, the New Institutional Approach came into prominence in the United States in the 1980s. This approach explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and cultures constrain the choices and actions of individuals when they are part of a political institution. It seeks to combine the interests of traditionalist scholars, who focused on studying formal institutional rules and structures, with behavioralist scholars, who examined the actions of individual political actors. This approach argues that studying individual political behavior without examining institutional constraints on that behavior provides an incomplete understanding of political reality and promoted the idea of experimentation.
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen are considered the two leading founders of the New Institutional Approach, with their influential works like “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life” (1984), “Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics” (1989) and “Democratic Governance.”
Other prominent thinkers- John W Meyer, Paul DiMaggio, Walter W Powel, Douglas C North, William Scott etc.
Both March and Olson emphasize the theoretical importance of institutions. The main slogans of new institutionalism were ‘Bringing the state back in’ and ‘Structuring politics’. New institutionalism tries to combine the interests of traditionalist scholars, who focused on studying formal institutional rules and structures, with behaviouralist scholars, who examined the actions of individual political actors.
Three Branches of New Institutional Approach
The New Institutional Approach has three branches: Rational choice institutionalism, Sociological institutionalism, and Historical institutionalism. These branches share a common critique of atomistic accounts of social processes and focus on institutionally ‘situated’ actors instead of atomistic individuals.
Historical Institutionalism
Historical institutionalism, also referred to as Logic of path-dependence advocated by Theda Skocpol, centers its focus on the impact of decisions made by member states within institutions, which subsequently create enduring structural conditions that influence the future behaviors of individuals involved in those institutions. This approach posits that once a decision has been made, reversing it becomes challenging and costly. States are thus compelled to operate and adapt within the confines of their prior decisions.
Kathleen Thelen criticized historical institutionalism for its limited attention to actor agency and its deterministic view of institutions, advocating for a more nuanced approach that integrates the role of political actors in shaping institutions.
Rational Choice Institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism advocated by Mancur Olson is primarily interested in understanding why states opt to delegate responsibilities to institutions. Olson called this approach the “logic of collective action” as it is based on the concept of selective incentives. States choose to operate within these institutions because it reduces transaction costs and offers them additional advantages. According to the rational choice institutionalism perspective, institutions provide a structured framework that enables states to pursue their independent objectives while also guiding them in determining the most appropriate courses of action. Fritz W Scharpf criticized this approach saying it is too actor centric in nature.
Sociological Institutionalism
Sociological institutionalism advocated by Elinor Ostrom represents a distinct branch that differs from the materialistic and cost-benefit analyses of other approaches. Instead, it directs its attention to non-material and sociological aspects of institutions, including norms, values, and cultures that these institutions embody. It emphasizes how these sociological qualities shape the policymaking process.
Additionally, Discursive Institutionalism is regarded as the fourth branch of the New Institutional approach developed by Campbell and Pederson. This approach is based on Leadership, role of language and communication.
Conclusion
The Institutional Approach in political science has been instrumental in understanding the formal structures and agencies of government. While it has faced criticisms, the evolution of the New Institutional Approach has helped address some of these limitations and provided a more holistic perspective on political systems by emphasizing the role of institutions in shaping political behavior.
Read More:
