Ideas and discourse
Schmidt (2008) distinguished three levels of ideas: specific policy solutions, the programs that underpin them and the deeper philosophies or worldviews. Ideas can be cognitive, saying what works, or normative, saying what is right. Discourse concerns who conveys these ideas, to whom and how. A central claim is that actors have not only 'background ideational abilities' to think within institutions but also 'foreground discursive abilities' to reflect critically on institutions and argue for changing them.
Coordinative and communicative discourse
Schmidt divided discourse into two spheres. Coordinative discourse takes place among policy actors such as officials, experts and interest groups, while communicative discourse is how politicians explain and legitimize policies to the public. Schmidt (2002) argued that communicative discourse matters more in 'single-actor' systems with concentrated power, such as Britain and France, and coordinative discourse more in 'multi-actor' systems with dispersed power, such as Germany. She explained why similar reform pressures produced different outcomes by the quality and structure of discourse.
Extensions and critiques
Blyth (2002) argued that economic ideas reducing uncertainty in crises drive institutional change, and Carstensen (2011) emphasized bricolage, in which actors combine multiple ideas. Carstensen and Schmidt (2016) distinguished power through ideas, power over ideas and power in ideas. Bell (2011), however, countered that historical institutionalism can already incorporate actors' interpretations, so no new institutionalism is needed. Along with research on policy paradigms and framing, the approach represents the ideational turn in new institutionalism.
FAQ
- What is discursive institutionalism in simple terms?
- It explains why institutions change or persist by looking at what ideas people hold and how they talk about them and persuade others.
- How does it differ from other institutionalisms?
- Others emphasize interest calculation, path dependence or cultural norms, while discursive institutionalism emphasizes ideas and the dynamics of discourse.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326. The founding review.
- Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25. The fourth institutionalism.
- Schmidt, V. A. (2002). The futures of European capitalism. Oxford University Press. European capitalism.
- Blyth, M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. Ideas in crises.
- Bell, S. (2011). Do we really need a new 'constructivist institutionalism' to explain institutional change? British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 883–906. A critique.
- Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337. Ideational power.
- Carstensen, M. B. (2011). Paradigm man vs. the bricoleur: Bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 147–167. Bricolage.