The search for concepts and explanations of institutional change and, particularly, the type of institutional change which is ideational in nature, has had a bias towards the dynamics of, and conditions for, change indicated in the CAP reform literature, but also enlarged on the methodologies and concepts offered. In order to promote analytical clarity the search for concepts and explanations of institutional change was conducted along the lines of the comn~only used three-fold categorisation: rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism. Thankfully, more often than not the proponents of a certain institutional optic have overtly drawn inspiration from other parts of the new-institutionalism and, hopefully, this point has also been be discernible above. However - with this in mind - in the name of further analytical clarity Table 2.1 emphasises the differences between the three institutional schools of thought, rather than focus on the details, overlaps and nuances. In other words, Table 2.1 establishes three ideal-typical approaches to the study of institutional change. The search for conceptualisations and explanations of institutional change is summed up along the lines of the methods employed to capture institutional change, the conditions thought of as conducive to institutional change as well as the central dynamics
'
through which institutional change is brought about.As to the dynamic of institutional change, the type of change that the dynamics are associated with is indicated in brackets and described by the terms formal, informal, radical or incremental change. These categories are, it must be acknowledged, quite crude and their usage across the theoretical frameworks are not straightforwardly comparable. Nonetheless, they represent the most commonly used terms that describe unlike types of change. Formal institutional change seems to imply, for instance, changes in legislation, formal decision- making procedures or various types of contractual agreements. Informal institutional change seems to imply changes in norms, values, ideas, traditions, culture, etc. Incremental institutional change seems to imply that changes have built up over time and been released by a decision of some sort or a particular event. Finally, radical institutional change not only implies that the situation, after the radical changes have occurred, is fundamentally different from the situation before but also that the changes come about over a shorter period of time than those which are incremental in nature. In any event, the adjectives used to describe the various types of changes associated with a particular dynamic are largely those also explicitly used by the various theoretical frameworks themselves.
See Campbell and Pedersen (2001 a, p. 12) for a comparable schematic presentation.
54 Institutional Change:
Rational Choice, Historical and Sociological Perspectives
Table 2.1: Rational Choice, Historical and Sociological Institutional Perspectives on Institutional Change
Hypothetical- 1 Comparative with a deductive with pronounced inductive
ethodological element dividual starting
Shifts in
I
External shocksrelative orices Crisis most often seen - - - ~ - ~ ~ - .-~ - ~ ~
as objective and non- cognitive phenomenon
Political and economic contradictions
Ideational fit Perceived costs Punctuated equilibrium
and feed-back processes formal1 informal1 (incremental1 radical)
Learning processes (incremental) ntrepreneurs with Persuasive ideas xtraordinary skills (incrementallradical)
but with recent move towards more inductive research strategies
Crisis most often seen as ideational phenomenon
Uncertainty about organisational goals, technological causes and effects and external expectations
Window of oooortunitv Learning processes (informallincremental)
Diffusion and isomorphism (informallincremental)
Problem identification, shaping and political selection (incremental)
Policy entrepreneurs with extraordinary skills and/or enabled by position in institutional environment (informal)
In general, the issue of institutional change has not been high on the rational choice institutional research agenda. Yet, it has been suggested that shifts in relative prices are conducive for change and the primary dynamic of institutional change is related to the perceived costs and benefits of alternative institutional arrangements. Rational choice institutionalists also tend to attach an important role to political entrepreneurs in carrying through change. Enabled by their position in a broader institutional environment (either at the margin of the incentives structures of the broader institutional environment or as mediators between constituencies and government officials), and their extraordinary skills (psychological predispositions, knowledge, ability to process information, negotiating skills and persistence) political entrepreneurs may be pivotal in initiating institutional changes. The preferred methodology of rational choice institutionalism is hypothetical-deductive with a point of departure in methodological individualism.
As is the case with rational choice institutionalism, the primary concern of historical institutionalism has not been with institutional change but rather with
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An lnstittrtional 55 Perspective on Continuity and Change
stability and path-dependency. Yet, over time, a stronger interest in studying and explaining institutional change has also developed within this institutional tradition and a series of suggestions on how to conceptualise the dynamic of ideational and institutional change have appeared. This interest has given rise to the concept of punctuated equilibrium focusing on the interaction between issues and venues, and the conceptualisation of learning processes leading to shifts in the beliefs of the involved agents. Certain ideas are thought to have a persuasive force in themselves, and to the extent that these ideas fit with already existing ideas and institutions they may bring about change. Regardless of the preferred conceptualisations of the dynamics of institutional change, historical institutionalists attach a significant amount of explanatory value to external shocks or change, e.g. general socio-economic disturbances, institutional crisis, change in government, war, etc., in triggering institutional change. The preferred methodology to capture institutional change goes through research strategies with a pronounced inductive element and often takes the form of comparative studies of sector policies or national polities. Common for historical institutional research is a pronounced focus on historical developments and, in particular, a zooming in on periods of time characterised by institution building.
Within the sociological institutionalism, changes are exclusively thought of as incremental and a series of concepts and explanations of this type of institutional change have been put forward. Institutional change may be brought about through learning processes where lessons learned from past experiences may lead to changes in institutionalised routines. Changes may also be generated by processes of diffusion and isomorphism. Such processes involve the spread of norms and ideas between social contexts or across organisational fields. Processes of identification, formulation and the shaping of problems and solutions may produce change and, likewise, the working of policy entrepreneurs may be central to both diffusion processes and in identifying, shaping and bringing problems to the attention of decision makers. Uncertainty within and among organisations, an open window of opportunity and the existence of a crisis are considered conducive to change. The preferred methodology of the sociological institutionalism has been hypothetical- deductive.