Historical Institutionalism
Elizabeth Sanders
Elizabeth Sanders begins her interpretation of historical institutionalism by defining it as
the study of human political interaction in context of rule structures, viewed sequentially, and
relying on path dependence. Essentially, it is as the name implies, the study of institutions across
history. Historical institutionalism has enjoyed a strong reputation over the past century, yet has
gone in and out of popularity. Following the invention of the computer in the 60s, the popularity
of HI waned as the computer made it easy to analyze large sets of data. Yet, it returned to
prominence in the 70’s as western liberalism was challenged and scholars needed a way to
examine the health of western liberal institutions. At the same time, the epistemology of HI and
rational choice came to the fore front. As the “Chicago School” argued for rational choice, there
was a parallel rebellion against pluralism. Although both schools saw institutions as constraints,
they differed in how they studied and interpreted those constraints. Rational choice theorists
looked toward the individual across a slim time frame, whereas, HI theorists saw constraints
within the construction, maintenance, and adaptation. They focused on goal oriented actors and
the outcomes they achieved which lead them to the study of ideas. Ideas in the HI theorist world
were the glue and motivation that held institutions together and force them to adapt respectively.
The focus on ideas pushed them towards philosophy and history, and lead them to conclude
about the long term viability and broad consequences of institutions. Conversely, believers of
rational choice sought to determine the motivations of the individual actors, and thus studied
their motivations and were lead to a heavier emphasis on mathematics.
RC was founded on abstraction, simplification and analytical rigor; related to math and
economics. RC pays more attention to the parameters of particular moments in history that are
the setting for the individual self-interesting maximization.
HI was founded on dense, empirical description and inductive reasoning; related to history and
philosophy. HI pays more attention to the long-term viability of institutions and their broad
consequences.
These ides could be antithetical, or could be complementary.
Three Varieties of Historical Institutionalism: Agents of Development and Change
Institutions are human-designed constraints on subsequent actions, but who designs?
Exogenous social forces or internal group dynamics -> agency-in-change receives a lot of HI
attention. HI studies path establishment and institutional change, focusing on prime movers in
the genesis and development of institutions. Some analysts start at the top with Presidents,
judges, and high-level bureaucrats. Some start from the bottom with the broader public,
particularly social movements and groups motivated by ideas, values and grievances. Some
believe in an interactive approach, others are comparatives that prefer a multifocal search for
actors and conditions that produce different national outcomes. Choice of focus changes
methodology. Top – documents, decisions, speeches, memoirs, and press reports. Bottom –
social movements, voters, legislators, and quantitative analysis. HI is definitely a messy genre.
Institutional Formation and Change from the Top Down
For the explanation of the birth and development of the modern state focus on the top –
like neo-Marxist and other elite focused historians. HI develops as a sub-field of APD with the
creation of a new section of politics and history in the American Political Science Association.
The historical analysis assumed the same – that institutional development unfolds on sites with
rule structures and holders of ‘plenary authority.’ It gives little attention to ‘ordinary people.’
Social movements were viewed as inconvenient obstacles; farmers, reps in Congress, jealous
judges were main obstacle to the holistic modernization schemes of visionaries in the Interstate
Commerce Commission and Senate. Skowronek focuses on the beginning of national railroad
regulation, the fight for meritocratic civil service and the struggle for a permanent professional
army. Elites were viewed as the prime movers in each case: intellectuals/businessman,
Midwestern senators, Presidents/generals. Think monetary policy with financial elites, central
banks and stable currencies. Think military decisions with the expansion of the bureaucracy
under the President and the rationalization of the military through Congress. HI shifts to political
parties, elites, public philosophies and policy foci.
Sanders discusses how sociologists, historians and political scientists were uncomfortable
with the idea that the elites were "the motor of history". She discusses the affects that social
groups have on the politics and policy. Sanders claims that social mobilization often called for
new or expanded governmental institutions. She claimed also that once a policy and institution
were in place that group demands and coalitions would then shape themselves based on the
"interpretation of rules by public officials." Sanders discusses that perhaps the most interesting
subject to study is labor and its development over time. Once labor unions began to form they're
existence shaped laws and the personnel who cared out the laws to their advantage. Southern
influence used it to protect what was deemed their interests.
Sanders also touched on that size of the presidency and "war making powers" and the
ballooning of the institution. Sanders suggested that further study of the institution as a whole
should be conducted rather than just that of the people within each office.