Historical institutionalism: beyond Pierson and Skocpol

Abstract

Conclusion: This paper has had three main aims. First, we have argued that Pierson and Skocpols representation of historical institutionalism is problematic because it makes far too many concessions to rational choice theory and presents a bland account of the strengths of historical institutionalism. Second, we presented an analysis of the historical institutionalist position to show that it is diverse, with people operating with quite different views as to the content, purpose and role of historical institutionalism. In particular, we suggest that historical institutionalism needs to be clear about its ontological and epistemological position and its conceptualistion of the relationships between structure and agency, the material and the ideational and institutions and ideas. Finally, we argue that the best way forward is to adopt a critical realist epistemology, which recognises that the relationship between structure/agency etc, should not be see as a dualism, but rather as a duality, or as we put it a dialectical relationship, interactive and iterative. Adopting this position would mean that historical institutionalism would become a more distinctive position and one which can help explain both stability and change.