The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism

TLDR

New institutionalism is widely discussed yet controversial, as critics question its novelty and the field lacks a unified definition or methodology, with rational choice, organization theory, and historical institutionalism all claiming the label. The author aims to clarify the theoretical core of new institutionalism, its contribution to political science, and the challenges it currently faces. The essay focuses on historical institutionalism, identified as the least understood branch, to illuminate the theoretical core.

Abstract

Proclamations of a “new” institutionalism, while widespread, have met with some skepticism in the scientific community. Critics wonder what about the new institutionalism is really so new. Institutions, surely, have been a focus of political science since its inception. In Europe, the state has consistently been central to the study of politics and, hence, plans to “bring it back in” do not seem especially innovative. Further confusion has arisen because the new institutionalists do not propose one generally accepted definition of an institution, nor do they appear to share a common research program or methodology. In fact, three separate branches of scholarship—rational choice, organization theory, and historical institutionalism—all lay claim to the label, seemingly without adhering to an overarching theoretical framework. I believe, however, that the new institutionalists do indeed share a common goal, one that cuts across these competing branches. My purpose in writing this essay is to communicate more clearly the content of this theoretical core. I hope in this way to clarify the contribution of the new institutionalism to political science and to indicate, as well, some of the problems currently facing this approach. Further, because historical institutionalism is the least well understood