European Political Science Review (2010),2:1,1-25 European Consortium for Political Research doi10.1017/5175577390999021X Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism' VIVIEN A.SCHMIDT* Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration,Director,Center for International Relations,Department of International Relations,Boston,MA,USA All three of the traditionally recognized new institutionalisms-rational choice,historical, and sociological-have increasingly sought to 'endogenize'change,which has often meant a turn to ideas and discourse.This article shows that the approaches of scholars coming out of each of these three institutionalist traditions who take ideas and discourse seriously can best be classified as part of a fourth'new institutionalism'-discursive institutionalism(DI) -which is concerned with both the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes of discourse in institutional context.It argues that this newest of the 'new institutionalisms' has the greatest potential for providing insights into the dynamics of institutional change by explaining the actual preferences,strategies,and normative orientations of actors.The article identifies the wide range of approaches that fit this analytic framework,illustrating the ways in which scholars of DI have gone beyond the limits of the traditional institutiona- lisms on questions of interests and uncertainty,critical junctures and incremental change, norms and culture.It defines institutions dynamically-in contrast to the older neo- institutionalisms'more static external rule-following structures of incentives,path- dependencies,and cultural framing-as structures and constructs of meaning internal to agents whose 'background ideational abilities'enable them to create(and maintain) institutions while their 'foreground discursive abilities'enable them to communicate critically about them,to change (or maintain)them.But the article also points to areas for improvement in DI,including the theoretical analysis of processes of ideational change,the use of the older neo-institutionalisms for background information,and the incorporation of the power of interests and position into accounts of the power of ideas and discourse. Keywords:ideas;discourse;discursive institutionalism;historical institutionalism;rational choice institutionalism;sociological institutionalism Introduction The three traditionally recognized 'new institutionalisms'of political science rational choice institutionalism(RI),historical institutionalism (HI),and socio- logical institutionalism(SI)-have one thing in common:they have been much E-mail:vschmidt@bu.edu
European Political Science Review (2010), 2:1, 1–25 & European Consortium for Political Research doi:10.1017/S175577390999021X Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’ VIVIEN A . SCHMIDT * Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration, Director, Center for International Relations, Department of International Relations, Boston, MA, USA All three of the traditionally recognized new institutionalisms – rational choice, historical, and sociological – have increasingly sought to ‘endogenize’ change, which has often meant a turn to ideas and discourse. This article shows that the approaches of scholars coming out of each of these three institutionalist traditions who take ideas and discourse seriously can best be classified as part of a fourth ‘new institutionalism’ – discursive institutionalism (DI) – which is concerned with both the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes of discourse in institutional context. It argues that this newest of the ‘new institutionalisms’ has the greatest potential for providing insights into the dynamics of institutional change by explaining the actual preferences, strategies, and normative orientations of actors. The article identifies the wide range of approaches that fit this analytic framework, illustrating the ways in which scholars of DI have gone beyond the limits of the traditional institutionalisms on questions of interests and uncertainty, critical junctures and incremental change, norms and culture. It defines institutions dynamically – in contrast to the older neoinstitutionalisms’ more static external rule-following structures of incentives, pathdependencies, and cultural framing – as structures and constructs of meaning internal to agents whose ‘background ideational abilities’ enable them to create (and maintain) institutions while their ‘foreground discursive abilities’ enable them to communicate critically about them, to change (or maintain) them. But the article also points to areas for improvement in DI, including the theoretical analysis of processes of ideational change, the use of the older neo-institutionalisms for background information, and the incorporation of the power of interests and position into accounts of the power of ideas and discourse. Keywords: ideas; discourse; discursive institutionalism; historical institutionalism; rational choice institutionalism; sociological institutionalism Introduction The three traditionally recognized ‘new institutionalisms’ of political science – rational choice institutionalism (RI), historical institutionalism (HI), and sociological institutionalism (SI) – have one thing in common: they have been much * E-mail: vschmidt@bu.edu 1
2 VIVIEN A.SCHMIDT better at explaining continuity than change.In all three frameworks for analysis, institutions serve primarily as constraints.RI focuses on rational actors who pursue their preferences following a 'logic of calculation'within political insti- tutions,defined as structures of incentives;HI details the development of political institutions,described as regularized patterns and routinized practices subject to a 'logic of path-dependence';and SI concentrates on social agents who act according to a 'logic of appropriateness'within political institutions,defined as socially constituted and culturally framed rules and norms.Because of their definitions of institutions,which they present largely as given,static,and con- straining,neo-institutionalist scholars in all three neo-institutionalisms have mainly explained change as coming from the outside,as the result of exogenous shocks.It is only relatively recently that they have sought to endogenize institu- tional change,by looking to explain the origins of or shifts in interest-based preferences,historical paths,or cultural frames.Although some such scholars have sought to do this while remaining within their older neo-institutionalism, others have turned to ideas and discourse.Just how many have done so in each of the three neo-institutionalisms varies considerably,however,with relatively few scholars working in the RI tradition,more in the HI tradition,and the most in the SI tradition.But importantly,all those who have come to take ideas and discourse seriously have broken with some of the fundamental presuppositions of their own institutionalist tradition at the same time that they have come to share enough in common to be identifiable as part of a fourth new institutionalism.And what they share includes not only an analytic framework but also a commitment to go beyond politics as usual'to explain the politics of change,whether this means the role of ideas in constituting political action,the power of persuasion in political debate, the centrality of deliberation for democratic legitimation,the(re)construction of political interests and values,or the dynamics of change in history and culture. I name this fourth new analytic framework 'discursive institutionalism'(DI)to call attention to the commonalities among the wide range of scholars who use ideas and discourse to explain political change (and continuity)in institutional context (see also Schmidt,2002:Ch.5,2006:Ch.5,2008).And I label all scholars who take ideas and discourse seriously as 'discursive institutionalists', whether they themselves use this term,prefer instead to classify themselves within one of the older institutionalist traditions,or have themselves come up with a different,more specific term to identify their particular take on ideas and/or discourse.Among these latter scholars,some focus primarily on the ideas side of the framework,calling their approach the 'ideational turn'(Blyth,2002),dis- cursive institutionalism (see Campbell and Pedersen,2001),ideational institu- tionalism (Hay,2001),and constructivist institutionalism(Hay,2006).Others emphasize the discourse side,whether calling it discourse analysis(Hajer,2003), the argumentative turn(Fischer,2003),or deliberative democracy(Dryzek,2000). Still others span the ideas/discourse divide,much like DI,whether through approaches focusing on the 'referentiel'(frame of reference)(Jobert,1989;Muller
better at explaining continuity than change. In all three frameworks for analysis, institutions serve primarily as constraints. RI focuses on rational actors who pursue their preferences following a ‘logic of calculation’ within political institutions, defined as structures of incentives; HI details the development of political institutions, described as regularized patterns and routinized practices subject to a ‘logic of path-dependence’; and SI concentrates on social agents who act according to a ‘logic of appropriateness’ within political institutions, defined as socially constituted and culturally framed rules and norms. Because of their definitions of institutions, which they present largely as given, static, and constraining, neo-institutionalist scholars in all three neo-institutionalisms have mainly explained change as coming from the outside, as the result of exogenous shocks. It is only relatively recently that they have sought to endogenize institutional change, by looking to explain the origins of or shifts in interest-based preferences, historical paths, or cultural frames. Although some such scholars have sought to do this while remaining within their older neo-institutionalism, others have turned to ideas and discourse. Just how many have done so in each of the three neo-institutionalisms varies considerably, however, with relatively few scholars working in the RI tradition, more in the HI tradition, and the most in the SI tradition. But importantly, all those who have come to take ideas and discourse seriously have broken with some of the fundamental presuppositions of their own institutionalist tradition at the same time that they have come to share enough in common to be identifiable as part of a fourth new institutionalism. And what they share includes not only an analytic framework but also a commitment to go beyond ‘politics as usual’ to explain the politics of change, whether this means the role of ideas in constituting political action, the power of persuasion in political debate, the centrality of deliberation for democratic legitimation, the (re) construction of political interests and values, or the dynamics of change in history and culture. I name this fourth new analytic framework ‘discursive institutionalism’ (DI) to call attention to the commonalities among the wide range of scholars who use ideas and discourse to explain political change (and continuity) in institutional context (see also Schmidt, 2002: Ch. 5, 2006: Ch. 5, 2008). And I label all scholars who take ideas and discourse seriously as ‘discursive institutionalists’, whether they themselves use this term, prefer instead to classify themselves within one of the older institutionalist traditions, or have themselves come up with a different, more specific term to identify their particular take on ideas and/or discourse. Among these latter scholars, some focus primarily on the ideas side of the framework, calling their approach the ‘ideational turn’ (Blyth, 2002), discursive institutionalism (see Campbell and Pedersen, 2001), ideational institutionalism (Hay, 2001), and constructivist institutionalism (Hay, 2006). Others emphasize the discourse side, whether calling it discourse analysis (Hajer, 2003), the argumentative turn (Fischer, 2003), or deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 2000). Still others span the ideas/discourse divide, much like DI, whether through approaches focusing on the ‘re´ferentiel’ (frame of reference) (Jobert, 1989; Muller, 2 VIVIEN A . SCHMIDT
Taking ideas and discourse seriously 3 1995)or on 'advocacy coalitions'(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith,1993).Yet others have resisted positing a fourth such institutionalism(e.g.,Campbell (2004),but see Campbell and Pedersen (2001)),mainly because they seek to blur the boundaries among the three older institutionalisms in order to show how ideas and discourse can serve to advance knowledge in the social sciences across methodological approaches.For our purposes,which is to demonstrate how the turn to ideas and discourse can take us beyond the limits of the three older neo- institutionalisms in order to explain the dynamics of change(and continuity),it is more useful to identify the commonalities in all approaches that focus on ideas and discourse as distinct from rationalist interests,path-dependent history,and cultural framing. Discursive institutionalism is an umbrella concept for the vast range of works in political science that take account of the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed and exchanged through dis- course.On the substantive dimension of ideas and discourse,DI scholars consider ideas about 'what is and what ought to be'at different levels of generality (Schmidt,2008;Mehta,2010),going from policy ideas (e.g.,Kingdon,1984; Hall,1989)to programmatic ideas or paradigms(Hall,1993;Berman,1998)to deeper philosophical ideas(Campbell,2004).They also consider different types of ideas,including cognitive ideas justified in terms of interest-based logics and necessity (e.g.,Jobert,1989;Hall,1993;Schmidt,2002:Ch.5)and normative ideas legitimated through appeal to values and appropriateness(e.g.,March and Olsen,1989;Schmidt,2000).And they consider the representation of ideas through discourse,including frames,narratives,myths,collective memories, stories,scripts,and more (e.g.,Roe,1994;Hajer,2003). On the interactive dimension,DI scholars consider the discursive processes by which such ideas are constructed in a 'coordinative'policy sphere and deliberated in a 'communicative'political sphere (Schmidt,2000,2002).The coordinative discourse encompasses the wide range of policy actors engaged in the construction of policy ideas.They may be organized in 'epistemic communities'of elites with shared ideas (Haas,1992),'advocacy coalitions'of elites with shared ideas and policy access(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith,1993),and'advocacy networks'of activists contesting ideas in international politics (Keck and Sikkink,1998).Or they may act as 'entrepreneurs'(Fligstein and Mara-Drita,1996)and 'mediators' (Jobert,1989;Muller,1995)who serve as catalysts for the ideas of such discursive communities. The communicative discourse encompasses the wide range of political actors who bring the ideas developed in the context of the coordinative discourse to the public for deliberation and legitimation.These actors may include political lea- ders involved in the top-down mass electoral process of public persuasion (see e.g.,Zaller,1992;Mutz et al.,1996),in public debates (Art,2006)or in the 'policy forums'of 'informed publics'(Rein and Schon,1991 engaged in 'com- municative action'(Habermas,1996).Or they may be members of civil society
1995) or on ‘advocacy coalitions’ (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Yet others have resisted positing a fourth such institutionalism (e.g., Campbell (2004), but see Campbell and Pedersen (2001)), mainly because they seek to blur the boundaries among the three older institutionalisms in order to show how ideas and discourse can serve to advance knowledge in the social sciences across methodological approaches. For our purposes, which is to demonstrate how the turn to ideas and discourse can take us beyond the limits of the three older neoinstitutionalisms in order to explain the dynamics of change (and continuity), it is more useful to identify the commonalities in all approaches that focus on ideas and discourse as distinct from rationalist interests, path-dependent history, and cultural framing. Discursive institutionalism is an umbrella concept for the vast range of works in political science that take account of the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed and exchanged through discourse. On the substantive dimension of ideas and discourse, DI scholars consider ideas about ‘what is and what ought to be’ at different levels of generality (Schmidt, 2008; Mehta, 2010), going from policy ideas (e.g., Kingdon, 1984; Hall, 1989) to programmatic ideas or paradigms (Hall, 1993; Berman, 1998) to deeper philosophical ideas (Campbell, 2004). They also consider different types of ideas, including cognitive ideas justified in terms of interest-based logics and necessity (e.g., Jobert, 1989; Hall, 1993; Schmidt, 2002: Ch. 5) and normative ideas legitimated through appeal to values and appropriateness (e.g., March and Olsen, 1989; Schmidt, 2000). And they consider the representation of ideas through discourse, including frames, narratives, myths, collective memories, stories, scripts, and more (e.g., Roe, 1994; Hajer, 2003). On the interactive dimension, DI scholars consider the discursive processes by which such ideas are constructed in a ‘coordinative’ policy sphere and deliberated in a ‘communicative’ political sphere (Schmidt, 2000, 2002). The coordinative discourse encompasses the wide range of policy actors engaged in the construction of policy ideas. They may be organized in ‘epistemic communities’ of elites with shared ideas (Haas, 1992), ‘advocacy coalitions’ of elites with shared ideas and policy access (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993), and ‘advocacy networks’ of activists contesting ideas in international politics (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Or they may act as ‘entrepreneurs’ (Fligstein and Mara-Drita, 1996) and ‘mediators’ (Jobert, 1989; Muller, 1995) who serve as catalysts for the ideas of such discursive communities. The communicative discourse encompasses the wide range of political actors who bring the ideas developed in the context of the coordinative discourse to the public for deliberation and legitimation. These actors may include political leaders involved in the top-down mass electoral process of public persuasion (see e.g., Zaller, 1992; Mutz et al., 1996), in public debates (Art, 2006) or in the ‘policy forums’ of ‘informed publics’ (Rein and Scho¨n, 1991 engaged in ‘communicative action’ (Habermas, 1996). Or they may be members of civil society Taking ideas and discourse seriously 3
4 VIVIEN A.SCHMIDT engaged in the bottom-up discursive interactions of grass-roots organizations, social movements,'mini-publics'(see Goodin and Dryzek,2006),local empowered participatory governance'(Fung and Wright,2003),and citizens whose voices are heard not only in opinion polls but also in votes-where actions speak even more loudly than words. The 'institutionalism'in discursive institutionalism suggests that this approach is not only about the communication of ideas or 'text'but also about the institutional context in which and through which ideas are communicated via discourse.The institutions of discursive institutionalism,however,are not the external rule-following structures of the three older institutionalisms that serve primarily as constraints on actors,whether as rationalist incentives,historical paths,or cultural frames.They are instead simultaneously constraining structures and enabling constructs of meaning, which are internal to 'sentient'(thinking and speaking)agents whose 'background ideational abilities'explain how they create and maintain institutions at the same time that their 'foreground discursive abilities'enable them to communicate critically about those institutions,to change (or maintain)them (Schmidt,2008).When dis- cursive institutionalists engage with any one of the older three neo-institutionalisms, therefore,they tend to use their results as background information,whether as the unproblematic basis for further inquiry -say,to elaborate on preference formation and to elucidate critical junctures-or as the problematic assumptions to be inves- tigated.With regard to institutional change,this would involve demonstrating how and when ideas in discursive interactions enable actors to overcome constraints which explanations in terms of interests,path dependence,and/or culture present as overwhelming impediments to action. Discursive institutionalism thus shares with the other neo-institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions,but it differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation,and in the ways in which it deals with change (see Table 1).Because the three older new institutionalisms'are well known,as are their drawbacks,this article provides only brief sketches of these here (for a fuller account,see Schmidt(2009a)).And because there is such a vast range of scholarly ideas about ideas and discourse (see Goodin and Tilly,2006:Pt IV),my purpose is not to review them all here.Rather,it is to show how DI fits against the other three new institutionalisms and,in doing so,to demonstrate that DI offers a framework within which to theorize about the dynamics of institutional change. The article begins with the turn to ideas first in RI,next in HI,and then in SI before exploring the interactive dimension of discourse.The article concludes with a consideration of the interrelationships among the four new institutionalisms. Rational choice institutionalism and the turn to ideas Rational choice institutionalism posits rational actors with fixed preferences who calculate strategically to maximize their preferences,and for whom institutions
engaged in the bottom-up discursive interactions of grass-roots organizations, social movements, ‘mini-publics’ (see Goodin and Dryzek, 2006), local ‘empowered participatory governance’ (Fung and Wright, 2003), and citizens whose voices are heard not only in opinion polls but also in votes – where actions speak even more loudly than words. The ‘institutionalism’ in discursive institutionalism suggests that this approach is not only about the communication of ideas or ‘text’ but also about the institutional context in which and through which ideas are communicated via discourse. The institutions of discursive institutionalism, however, are not the external rule-following structures of the three older institutionalisms that serve primarily as constraints on actors, whether as rationalist incentives, historical paths, or cultural frames. They are instead simultaneously constraining structures and enabling constructs of meaning, which are internal to ‘sentient’ (thinking and speaking) agents whose ‘background ideational abilities’ explain how they create and maintain institutions at the same time that their ‘foreground discursive abilities’ enable them to communicate critically about those institutions, to change (or maintain) them (Schmidt, 2008). When discursive institutionalists engage with any one of the older three neo-institutionalisms, therefore, they tend to use their results as background information, whether as the unproblematic basis for further inquiry – say, to elaborate on preference formation and to elucidate critical junctures – or as the problematic assumptions to be investigated. With regard to institutional change, this would involve demonstrating how and when ideas in discursive interactions enable actors to overcome constraints which explanations in terms of interests, path dependence, and/or culture present as overwhelming impediments to action. Discursive institutionalism thus shares with the other neo-institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions, but it differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation, and in the ways in which it deals with change (see Table 1). Because the three older ‘new institutionalisms’ are well known, as are their drawbacks, this article provides only brief sketches of these here (for a fuller account, see Schmidt (2009a)). And because there is such a vast range of scholarly ideas about ideas and discourse (see Goodin and Tilly, 2006: Pt IV), my purpose is not to review them all here. Rather, it is to show how DI fits against the other three new institutionalisms and, in doing so, to demonstrate that DI offers a framework within which to theorize about the dynamics of institutional change. The article begins with the turn to ideas first in RI, next in HI, and then in SI before exploring the interactive dimension of discourse. The article concludes with a consideration of the interrelationships among the four new institutionalisms. Rational choice institutionalism and the turn to ideas Rational choice institutionalism posits rational actors with fixed preferences who calculate strategically to maximize their preferences, and for whom institutions 4 VIVIEN A . SCHMIDT
Table 1.The four new institutionalisms Rational choice institutionalism Historical institutionalism Sociological institutionalism Discursive institutionalism Object of explanation Behavior of rational actors Structures and practices Norms and culture of social Ideas and discourse of sentient agents agents Logic of explanation Calculation Path-dependency Appropriateness Communication Definition of institutions Incentive structures Macro-historical structures and Cultural norms and frames Meaning structures and regularities constructs Approach to change Static continuity through Static -continuity through Static -continuity through Dynamic-change (and fixed preferences,stable path dependency interrupted cultural norms and rules continuity)through ideas and institutions by critical junctures discursive interaction Explanation of change Exogenous shock Exogenous shock Exogenous shock Endogenous process through background ideational and foreground discursive abilities Taking Recent innovations to Endogenous ascription of Endogenous description of Endogenous construction Endogenous construction through explain change interest shifts through RI incremental change through (merge with DI) reframing,recasting collective ideas political coalitions or HI layering,drift,conversion memories and narratives self-reinforcing or self- through epistemic communities, undermining processes advocacy coalitions, communicative action, deliberative democracy discourse RI=rational choice institutionalism;HI=historical institutionalism;DI=discursive institutionalism. seriously
Table 1. The four new institutionalisms Rational choice institutionalism Historical institutionalism Sociological institutionalism Discursive institutionalism Object of explanation Behavior of rational actors Structures and practices Norms and culture of social agents Ideas and discourse of sentient agents Logic of explanation Calculation Path-dependency Appropriateness Communication Definition of institutions Incentive structures Macro-historical structures and regularities Cultural norms and frames Meaning structures and constructs Approach to change Static – continuity through fixed preferences, stable institutions Static – continuity through path dependency interrupted by critical junctures Static – continuity through cultural norms and rules Dynamic – change (and continuity) through ideas and discursive interaction Explanation of change Exogenous shock Exogenous shock Exogenous shock Endogenous process through background ideational and foreground discursive abilities Recent innovations to explain change Endogenous ascription of interest shifts through RI political coalitions or HI self-reinforcing or selfundermining processes Endogenous description of incremental change through layering, drift, conversion Endogenous construction (merge with DI) Endogenous construction through reframing, recasting collective memories and narratives through epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions, communicative action, deliberative democracy RI 5 rational choice institutionalism; HI 5 historical institutionalism; DI 5 discursive institutionalism. Taking ideas and discourse seriously 5