As the enthusiasm for ‘‘new institutional’’ approaches has Xourished over the last twenty years, so also has the skepticism. It has been asked whether institutional accounts really present anything new; whether their empirical and theoretical claims can be sustained; whether their explanations are falsiWable; and whether institutional accounts can be diVerentiated from other accounts of politics (Jordan 1990; Peters 1999).
It has, however, turned out to be diYcult to understand legislatures (Gamm and Huber 2002), public administration (Olsen 2005), courts of law (Clayton and Gillman 1999), and diplomacy (Ba´tora 2005) without taking into account their institutional characteristics. It has also been argued that the study of institutions in political science has been taken forward (Lowndes 2002, 97); that ‘‘there is a future for the institutional approach’’ (Rhodes 1995); and even that the variety of new institutionalisms have ‘‘great power to provide an integrative framework’’ and may represent the ‘‘next revolution’’ in political science (Goodin and Klingeman 1996, 25).
The ‘‘new institutionalism’’ tries to avoid unfeasible assumptions that require too much of political actors, in terms of normative commitments (virtue), cogni- tive abilities (bounded rationality), and social control (capabilities). The rules, routines, norms, and identities of an ‘‘institution,’’ rather than micro-rational individuals or macro-social forces, are the basic units of analysis. Yet the spirit is to supplement rather than reject alternative approaches (March and Olsen 1998, 2006; Olsen 2001). Much remains, however, before the diVerent conceptions of political institutions, action, and change can be reconciled meaningfully.
The fact that political practice in contemporary political systems now seems to precede understanding and justiWcation may, however, permit new insights. Political science is to a large extent based upon the study of the sovereign, territorial state, and the Westphalian state-system. Yet the hierarchical role of the political center within each state and the ‘‘anarchic’’ relations between states are undergoing major transformations, for example in the European Union. An implication is that there is a need for new ways of describing how authority, rights, obligations, interaction, attention, experience, memory, and resources are organized, beyond hierarchies and markets (Brunsson and Olsen 1998). Network institutionalism is one candidate for understanding both intra- and interinstitutional relations (Lowndes 2002).
There is also a need to go beyond rational design and environmental dictates as the dominant logics of institutional change (Brunsson and Olsen 1998). There is a need for improved understanding of the processes that translate political action into institutional change, how an existing institutional order impacts the dynamics of change, and what other factors can be decisive. The list of questions is long,
indeed (Thelen 1999; Orren and Skowronek 2004; Streeck and Thelen 2005). Which institutional characteristics favor change and which make institutions resistant to change? Which factors are likely to disrupt established patterns and processes of institutional maintenance and regeneration? What are the interrelations between change in some (parts of) institutions and continuity in others, and between incremental adaptation and periods of radical change? Under what conditions does incremental change give a consistent and discernable direction to change and how are the outcomes of critical junctures translated into lasting legacies? Which (parts of) political institutions are understood and controlled well enough to be designed and also to achieve anticipated and desired eVects?
