Contributions and challenges of historical institutionalism to contemporary Political Science
Keywords:
Neoinstitutionalism, Historical Institutionalism, Political Theory, Methodology, Hierarchies of KnowledgeAbstract
Throughout the second half of the 20th century, Neoinstitutionalism has developed into two pervasive theories in the discipline: rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism. The article traces the epistemological and methodological evolution of historical institutionalism, aiming to understand its context within contemporary Political Science. Since the Perestroika movement, which reactivated old methodological schisms in the discipline, the debates about the meanings of scientific knowledge have acquired renewed importance, especially due to the controversial initiative known as Data Access and Research Transparency. Historical institutionalism, which is founded on a qualitative/interpretive approach to political phenomena, has occupied a central position in these controversies. Therefore, by mapping its epistemologies, the article critically evaluates the theory in terms of the aforementioned debates and the hierarchies of knowledge in the discipline.
Downloads
References
ACEMOGLU, D.; ROBINSON, J. A. Why nations fail? London: Profile Books, 2012.
BOCHMANN, C. Evolutionary institutionalism: evolutionary concepts in institutional analysis. In: EUROPEAN CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL RESEARCH GENERAL CONFERENCE, 2011, Reykjavik. Proceedings… Reykjavik: ECPR, 2011.
CAPOCCIA, G. Critical junctures and institutional change. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 147-179.
COX, G. W. The empirical content of rational choice theory. Journal of Theoretical Politics, Thousand Oaks, v. 11, n. 2, p. 147-169, 1999.
EASTON, D. Political science in the United States: past and present. International Political Science Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 6, n. 1, p. 133-152, 1985.
ELMAN, C.; KAPISZEWSKI, D. Data Access and Research Transparency in the Qualitative Tradition. Political Science & Politics, Cambridge, v. 47, n. 1, p. 43-47, 2014.
FALETTI, T. G.; MAHONEY, J. The comparative sequential method. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 211-239.
FARR, J. Remembering the revolution: behavioralism in American political science. In: FARR, J.; DRYZEK, J.; LEONARD, S. (Eds.). Political science in history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 198-224.
FLYVBJERG, B. A perestroikan straw man answers back: David Laitin and phronetic political science. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 56-85.
FUJII, L. A. The dark side of DA-RT. Comparative Politics Newsletter, State College, v. 26, n. 1, p. 25-27, 2016.
GOLDSTONE, J. A. Comparative historical analysis and knowledge accumulation in the study of revolutions. In: MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. (Eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 41-90.
GREEN, D. P.; SHAPIRO, I. Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
GUNNELL, J. Pluralism and the fate of Perestroika: a historical reflection. Perspectives on Politics, Cambridge, v. 13, n. 2, p. 408-415, 2015.
HACKER, J. S.; PIERSON, P.; THELEN, K. Drift and conversion: hidden faces of institutional change In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 180-208.
HALL, P. A. Transparency, research integrity and multiple methods. Comparative Politics Newsletter, State College, v. 26, n. 1, p. 32-36, 2016.
HALL, P. A.; TAYLOR, R. C. R. As três versões do neo-institucionalismo. Lua Nova, São Paulo, v. 58, p. 193-22, 2003.
HOCHSCHILD, J. L. Editor’s note: introduction and observations. Perspectives on Politics, Cambridge, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-4, 2003.
HTUN, M. DA-RT and the social conditions of knowledge production in political science. Comparative Politics Newsletter, State College, v. 26, n. 1, p. 32-36, 2016.
JACKSON, P. T. A statistician strikes out: in defense of genuine methodological diversity. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 86-97.
KING, G. et al. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in quantitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
KIRKPATRICK, E. The impact of the behavioral approach on traditional political science. In: RANNEY, A. (Ed.). Essays on the behavioral study of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. p. 1-29.
LEVI, M. A model, a method and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In: LICHBACH, M. I.; ZUCKERMAN, A. S. (Eds.). Comparative politics: rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p. 19-41.
LIEBERMAN, E. S. Nested analysis: toward the integration of comparative-historical analysis with other social science methods. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 240-263.
LUPIA, A.; ELMAN, C. Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency. Political Science & Politics, Cambridge, v. 47, n. 1, p. 19-42, 2014.
LUSTICK, I. S. Historical institutionalism and evolution: tropes without theory. In: AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBITION, 2009, Toronto. Proceedings… Toronto: American Political Science Association, 2009.
MAHONEY, J. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, New York, v. 29, n. 4, p. 507-548, 2000.
MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. Comparative historical analysis: achievements and agendas. In: MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. (Eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 3-40.
MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. A theory of gradual institutional change. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 1-37.
______. Comparative-historical analysis in contemporary political science. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 3-37.
MORAVCSIK, A. Transparency: the revolution in qualitative research. Political Science & Politics, Cambridge, v. 47, n. 1, p. 48-53, 2014.
NORRIS, P. Towards a more cosmopolitan political science? European Journal of Political Research, Hoboken, v. 31, n. 1, p. 17-34, 1997.
NORTH, D. C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
______. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
PIERSON, P. Big, slow-moving and … invisible. In: MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. (Eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 177-207.
______. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, Washington, DC, v. 94, n. 2, p. 251-267, 2000.
PIERSON, P. Politics in time: institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
REZENDE, F. C. Convergências e controvérsias sobre a mudança institucional: modelos tradicionais em perspectiva comparada. Revista de Sociologia e Política, Curitiba, v. 20, n. 41, p. 37-51, 2012.
SANDERS, E. Historical institutionalism. In: RHODES, R. A. W.; BINDER, S. A.; ROCKMAN, B. A. (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 39-55.
SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. Introduction: reframing the debate. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 1-16.
SCHWARTZ-SHEA, P. Conundrums in the practice of pluralism. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 209-221.
SCHWARTZ-SHEA, P.; YANOW, D. Legitimizing political science or splitting the discipline? Reflections on DA-RT and the policy-making role of a professional association. Politics & Gender, Cambridge, v. 12, n. 11, p. 1-19, 2016.
SHAPIRO, I.; SMITH, R.; MASOUD, T. Introduction: problems and methods in the study of politics. In: SHAPIRO, I.; SMITH, R.; MASOUD, T. (Eds.). Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 1-18.
SHEPSLE, K. A. Analyzing politics: rationality, behavior, and institutions. London: Norton & Company, 2010.
______. Rational choice institutionalism. In: RHODES, R. A. W.; BINDER, S. A.; ROCKMAN, B. A. (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 23-38.
SIL, R.; CASTRO, G.; CALASANTI, A. Avant-garde or dogmatic? DA-RT in the mirror of the social sciences. Comparative Politics Newsletter, State College, v. 26, n. 1, p. 40-43, 2016.
SKOCPOL, T. Bringing the state back in: strategies of analysis in current research. In: EVANS, P. B.; RUESCHEMEYER, D.; SKOCPOL, T. (Eds.). Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 3-43.
______. Doubly engaged social science: the promise of comparative historical analysis. In: MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. (Eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 407-429.
______. Why I am a historical institutionalist. Polity, Chicago, v. 28, n. 1, p. 103-106, 1995.
STEINMO, S. The evolution of modern states: Sweden, Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
STINCHCOMBE, A. Constructing social theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
THELEN, K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, Palo Alto, v. 2, p. 369-404, 1999.
______. How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis. In: MAHONEY, J.; RUESCHEMEYER, D. (Eds.). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 208-240.
______. How institutions evolve: the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
THELEN, K.; STEINMO, S. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In: STEINMO, S.; THELEN, K.; LONGSTRETH, F. (Eds.). Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. p. 1-32.
THELEN, K.; STREECK, W. Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies. In: THELEN, K.; STREECK, W. (Eds.). Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 1-39.
