New Institutionalism: Distilling Some ‘Hard Core’ Propositions in the Works of Williamson and March and Olsen
| Author | Rosa Mulé |
| Published date | 01 September 1999 |
| Date | 01 September 1999 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00098 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
New Institutionalism:New Institutionalism:
Distilling some `HardDistilling some `Hard
Core' Propositions inCore' Propositions in
thethe WWorks of Williamsonorks of Williamson
and March and Olsenand March and Olsen
Rosa MuleÂ
The eorescence of work on new institution-
alism has encouraged scholars to build
bridges between various schools of thought.
Such cross-fertilisation enlivens the debate
but runs the risk of erecting bridges on shaky
foundations. My article seeks to minimise this
risk by going back to basics. It narrows the
®eld of inquiry to the economic and the
sociological institutionalist tradition repre-
sented by Williamson on one side, and the
collaborative work of March and Olsen on
the other. It explores and assesses their con-
tribution on three interrelated issues funda-
mental to any analysis of political
institutions: the goals attributed to institu-
tions, the theory of action and the commit-
ment to methodological individualism versus
methodological holism. I conclude by noting
that in the transition from the old to the new
institutionalism ± as represented in the works
of these authors ± the role of power con¯icts,
negotiations and bargaining between indivi-
duals seems to have lost its central position.
Introduction
The impact of institutions on policy outputs
and outcomes has been a longlasting concern
among students of politics, yet interest in
institutions reached a low point in the post-
war period as researchers invested their ener-
gies in the study of behaviouralism or systems
theory. At the same time, a general trend
developed that was inclined to see the causal
links between society and polity as running
from the former to the latter, rather than the
other way round. A host of variables were
assumed to aect politics but were allegedly
not signi®cantly aected by politics. Class,
geography, climate, ethnicity, language, cul-
ture, economic conditions, demography, tech-
nology, ideology and religion seemingly
formed and shaped political life (March and
Olsen, 1989). Since these approaches largely
neglected the in¯uence of institutions in the
policy process, it is no wonder that analysts
have vigorously reacted against this anti-insti-
Politics (1999) 19(3) pp. 145±151
#Political Studies Association 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 145
Rosa MuleÂ, University of Warwick
1
To continue reading
Request your trial