The outline of a discursive institutional approach and the conceptualisations of the conditions for, and dynamic of, institutional change draw mainly on Andersen (1 995), Pedersen (1 995), Andersen et al. (1 996), Andersen and Kjaer (1 996), Kjaer (1 996), Campbell and Pedersen (200 1 a), Kjaer and Pedersen (200 I), but inspiration is also drawn from Rochefort and Cobb (1994a), Hajer (1995) and Wittrock and Wagner (1996), and on selected issues even if the latter authors are not explicitly referring to a discursive institutionalism nor do they all have an explicit institutional focus (cf. Rochefort and Cobb 1994a).
Ideas, Discourse and Institutions
The discursive institutional approach to institutional research argued here, takes its point of departure in a logical sequence, which binds together the concepts of idea, discourse, and institution (Andersen 1995; Andersen and Kjaer 1996; Kjaer 1996; Kjaer and Pedersen 2001). Ideas are the final point of reference in which discourses are anchored. Ideas are the final points of reference in the sense that no further explanation is needed or expected when references are made to such ideas. It may be disputed whether or not the articulation of a certain idea is acceptable and legitimate in a particular context, however, the idea referred to is not a matter of dispute. Ideas are the anchor of discourses in the sense that they enable the production of discourse and, for instance, enable the articulation of problems and solutions, while also acting to delimit other problems and solutions from being identified in a particular context (Andersen 1995, pp. 18-
19). This does not mean that there exists a complete consensus on the articulation of ideas embedded in a given discourse but, rather, that agents need to express themselves for, against and through a set of ideas in order to produce relevant and meaningful statements. In order to speak and act meaningfully and to be taken seriously, agents are expected to refer to a set of commonly
5 8 A Discursive Institutional Approach and its Analytical Implications
recognised ideas. Ideas have in themselves no meaning. However, meaning and possible conflicts over meaning appear when ideas, through processes of articulation, are turned into discourse (Andersen 1995, p. 18; Andersen and Kjaer
1996, p.8).
Discourses unfold as ideas are articulated and, over time, are turned into rules-based systems of concepts and conceptions and a discourse may thus be defined as 'a system of meaning that orders the production of conceptions and interpretations of the social world in a particular context' (Kjaer and Pedersen 2001, p.220). To be able to talk about the existence of a discourse, a system or common set of rules for a collection of concepts and conceptions must be identifiable. Institutions, in turn, are authorised and sanctioned discourse. In general, the set of rules governing a discourse are referred to as institutions when these rules, through processes of institutionalisation, have attained some degree of authority and been linked to certain sanctions (Andersen 1995, p.22).
The conceptualisation of institution thus arises out of the concept of discourse, and the relationship between the two is historically contingent and, essentially, an empirical question. More specifically, the institutions identified through a discursive institutional optic are those creating expectations about viable political activity in a particular context by constituting a set of authorised and sanctioned rules on, for instance, acceptable and valid statements, the production and maintenance of knowledge, and the formulation of relevant problems and their solutions (Kjaer and Pedersen 2001). The logical sequence between ideas, discourse and institutions, also gives rise to two distinct understandings of change.
Change thus appears: (i) as ideas are turned into discourse, and (ii) as discourse is turned into institutions. The process of ideas being turned into discourse is one of articulation, and the process of discourse being turned into institutions is one of institutionalisation. Since discourses are rules-based systems of concepts and conceptions, processes of articulation progress through the establishment of some sort of discursive rules and, since institutions are authorised and sanctioned discourse, processes of institutionalisation progress through authorisations and the establishment of some sort of sanctions.
The discursive institutional concern with ideational change has similarities with, but also differs from, rational choice, historical and sociological institutional approaches. First, discursive institutionalism, in contrast to recent historical institutional concern with ideas, which are seen as constituting one independent variable among others and exerting a causal effect on the phenomenon selected for investigation (e.g. Hall 1989, 1993), holds that ideas only attain meaning within a particular institutional and discursive context and, as such, should be considered endogenous to the field selected for study. Second, opposed to the historical institutionalism, which tends to operate with ideas as well-defined and stable entities (e.g. Hall 1989, 1993) the discursive institutional approach advocated in the current context does not assume ideational stability.
Rather, change in meaning systems or discourses in which ideas are embedded,
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Instit~rtional 59 Perspective on Contin~rity and Change
may also entail changes in the articulation of ideals and. hence, bring about ideational change.
Third, whereas the rational choice and historical institutionalisms tend to address institutions as - albeit humanly constructed - external constraints on human behaviour, the discursive conceptualisation of institutions is closer to the cognitive sociological notion, which holds that agents interpret their environments through institutions. Yet, this discursive institutional conceptualisation of institutions differs also from those of the sociological institutionalism by being more concerned with the rules of 'what is sayable' (Foucault 1991, p.59) than the rules guiding 'what is thinkable'. That is, rather than bringing attention to cultural rules, intentions, and motivations, the rules that are brought into focus by a discursive institutional optic are those that govern the production of discourse and, hence, collective meaning systems.
Finally, although institutions are bits of discourse, which have obtained some degree of authority and been linked to sanctions, a discursive conceptualisation of institutions also implies that institutions are not fixed. Rather, institutions are ongoing processes of renewal and possible change and are upheld only for as long as someone actually refers to the authorised and sanctioned discursive rules that constitute institutions (Andersen 1995, p.23).
A Brief Methodological Introduction
Even though studies drawing on discourse analysis - at least in the context of European studies - are often subsumed under the social constructivist label, the discursive institutional approach advocated here differs in particular on methodological issues, in relation to most of its counterparts under the social constructivist label, to a degree that cannot be ignored. More specifically, some practitioners of social constructivist research (e.g. Checkel 2001) inspired by sociological institutionalism, draw on hypothetical-deductive methodologies when studying ideas. A hypothetical-deductive methodology, however, gives rise to epistemological concerns related to reductionism. Particularly in relation to the study of change, it seems that analytically predefined notions of ideas lead to significant limitations as to the range of changes that may, potentially, be captured and subsequently accounted for by such approaches. Conversely, by embedding the articulation of ideas in a given meaning system and making ideational change a central concern for empirical investigation, the discursive institutional approach aims to capture ideational change within the meaning system under investigation irrespective of its nature. Thus, since ideas attain their meaning when articulated and when turned into discourse, the distinctive methodological feature of a discursive institutional approach is that it has discourse as its object for study.
The methodological setting of the discursive institutional optic advocated in the current context is neither hypothetical-deductive, as ascribed to by devotees
60 A Discursive Institutional Approach and its Analytical Implications
of rational choice institutionalism, as well as some sociological and, to a lesser degree, historical institutionalists - nor is it clear-cut inductive. Rather, the starting point may be described as analytical inductive. On the one hand, the approach is analytical since the point of departure is taken in general reflections on the concepts of, and the logical sequence between, ideas, discourse and institutions as well as in a series of conceptualisations about the conditions for, and dynamics of, institutional change. On the other hand, the approach is inductive in the sense that the analytical frameworks drawn upon in concrete empirical studies are 'drained' of their causalities, concepts are refined and interrelations established through historical descriptive empirical analysis.
Essentially, institutional change should be understood through the study of the interrelationship between the discursive and the institutional and this interrelationship is historically contingent.
It is thus important to note that present approach to institutional research has a knowledge ambition that differs from the rational choice and sociological and, to a lesser degree historical institutional approaches, which - to a varying degree - strive to establish causal theories. Against this, rather than striving to achieve the formulation of theories that reflect, and are testable against, an objective, stable and observable reality, the aim is to develop analytical strategies, which in turn enable the study of concrete historical institutional developments (Andersen et al. 1996, pp.171-172). In this sense a discursive institutional analytical strategy, on the one hand, takes its lead from theories and concepts of ideas, discourse and institutions while, on the other hand, an analytical strategy obtains its value when it inspires empirical studies, which generate not already available 'insights into aspects of the institutional organization of society' (Andersen et al. 1996, p. 172).