Institutions shape politics
Behavioralist political science in the 1950s and 1960s focused on the behavior of individuals and groups and treated institutions as little more than the arena in which that behavior unfolded. In response, Steinmo and colleagues (1992) argued that institutions shape who has which resources and access, what actors want and what it is rational for them to do. Different national responses to similar economic crises, for example, reflected differences in electoral systems, labor relations and bureaucratic structures. Hall and Taylor (1996) noted that this approach differs from other branches of new institutionalism in emphasizing power asymmetries and historical paths.
Path dependence and critical junctures
Borrowing the economic concept of increasing returns, Pierson (2000) explained that once a path is chosen, the benefits of staying on it grow and the costs of reversal rise, so institutions become self-reinforcing. Small early events or the order of choices can therefore make large long-term differences. Mahoney (2000) divided such path dependence into self-reinforcing sequences and reactive sequences of causally linked events. Capoccia and Kelemen (2007) defined critical junctures as relatively short periods in which institutional trajectories diverge sharply and in which actors' choices have far greater impact than usual.
Gradual change and critiques
Early historical institutionalism was criticized for contrasting long periods of stability with brief moments of upheaval and explaining change mainly through external shocks. Streeck and Thelen (2005) responded by identifying four modes of gradual change: displacement, replacing old rules with new ones; layering, adding new rules on top of existing ones; drift, leaving rules unchanged as the environment shifts so that their effects change; and conversion, redirecting existing institutions to new purposes. Thelen (1999) saw the approach increasingly in dialogue with rational choice, but critics note that its case-based method makes generalization difficult and risks post hoc explanation.
FAQ
- What is historical institutionalism in simple terms?
- It is the view that institutions created in the past keep shaping people's choices and political outcomes afterward, which is why countries facing similar problems adopt different policies depending on their historical paths.
- What is path dependence?
- It is the phenomenon in which the further a chosen path is followed, the greater the benefits of staying on it and the costs of changing it, so early choices become locked in over the long run. It is a core concept of historical institutionalism.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The volume that named and launched historical institutionalism.
- Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. The classic comparison of the three new institutionalisms.
- Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404. A review of the approach in comparative politics.
- Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. Increasing returns and path dependence in politics.
- Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. Distinguishes self-reinforcing and reactive sequences.
- Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gradual institutional change: displacement, layering, drift and conversion.
- Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369. A rigorous treatment of critical junctures.