An analytical approach to institutions in political science

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano

Lietuviškas

Introduction to Political Science

La pensée sociale d'Émile Durkheim et Pierre Bourdieu ● Aux origines de la chute de la République de Weimar ● La pensée sociale de Max Weber et Vilfredo Pareto ● La notion de « concept » en sciences-sociales ● Histoire de la discipline de la science politique : théories et conceptions ● Marxisme et Structuralisme ● Fonctionnalisme et Systémisme ● Interactionnisme et Constructivisme ● Les théories de l’anthropologie politique ● Le débat des trois I : intérêts, institutions et idées ● La théorie du choix rationnel et l'analyse des intérêts en science politique ● Approche analytique des institutions en science politique ● L'étude des idées et idéologies dans la science politique ● Les théories de la guerre en science politique ● La Guerre : conceptions et évolutions ● La raison d’État ● État, souveraineté, mondialisation, gouvernance multiniveaux ● Les théories de la violence en science politique ● Welfare State et biopouvoir ● Analyse des régimes démocratiques et des processus de démocratisation ● Systèmes Électoraux : Mécanismes, Enjeux et Conséquences ● Le système de gouvernement des démocraties ● Morphologie des contestations ● L’action dans la théorie politique ● Introduction à la politique suisse ● Introduction au comportement politique ● Analyse des Politiques Publiques : définition et cycle d'une politique publique ● Analyse des Politiques Publiques : mise à l'agenda et formulation ● Analyse des Politiques Publiques : mise en œuvre et évaluation ● Introduction à la sous-discipline des relations internationales

Institutions are a fundamental concept in political science. They determine how power is exercised, how decisions are made and how conflicts are resolved in a society.

Political science looks at various types of institution, each with a specific role. On the one hand, political institutions include government structures such as parliament, the executive and the judiciary. They establish the way in which power is distributed and used within a state. On the other hand, administrative institutions, which include ministries, government agencies and law enforcement agencies, are responsible for implementing the policies and laws established by the political institutions. In another context, legislative institutions, which in a democratic system include parliament or congress, are responsible for drafting laws. The interpretation and application of these laws is then the responsibility of the judicial institutions, which comprise the courts and other legal bodies. Finally, there are non-governmental institutions that also have a significant influence on politics. Legislative institutions create laws, administrative institutions implement them, and judicial institutions interpret and apply them. Institutions are not just formal structures, but also informal rules and norms that shape political behaviour. These rules and norms can be just as, if not more, important than formal structures in understanding how politics works. For example, norms of respect for the rule of law or non-discrimination can have a significant impact on how politics works.

The analytical approach to institutions in political science refers to a method of study that focuses on the rigorous and systematic analysis of political institutions in the field of political science. This approach seeks to understand institutions by examining their characteristics, structures, functions and interactions with other political actors. The analytical approach involves the use of different conceptual and methodological tools to examine institutions. This may include the comparative analysis of different political institutions across countries, the study of institutional decision-making processes, the analysis of institutional control and regulation mechanisms, and the assessment of the impact of institutions on political behaviour and policy outcomes. The institutional analytic approach in political science aims to provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the role of institutions in political systems, with an emphasis on the precise examination of institutional structures and dynamics.

What is an institution?

Definitions: formal or informal rules, routines or conventions that exist at all political levels

Institutions are often broadly defined as rules, procedures, routines or conventions that are more or less formal and exist at various levels of analysis. This may be at the international level, where institutions such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation play a crucial role in regulating interactions between countries. At the sub-national or regional level, institutions may include local or regional government bodies, community groups, or even social conventions that govern behaviour in certain regions. In addition, institutions can also exist at a sectoral level. For example, in the financial sector, there are institutions such as central banks or financial regulators that establish the rules and procedures for the operation of the sector. Thus, institutions are basically 'rules of the game' that structure behaviour in society, whether they are formally enshrined in law or take the form of informal social norms and conventions.

A constitution, such as the Swiss Constitution, is a perfect example of an institution in the sense that it establishes a set of rules and procedures that define the structure and functioning of the state. It determines the form of the state - in Switzerland's case, a confederation - and it specifies the relationships between the different branches of government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The Swiss Constitution, for example, establishes a semi-direct system of government that combines elements of representative democracy with instruments of direct democracy such as referendums. It also sets out the fundamental rights of Swiss citizens and defines the powers of the different levels of government - federal, cantonal and communal. It also defines how these political bodies are selected, for example by stipulating that the members of the Federal Council (the executive power in Switzerland) are elected by the Federal Assembly (parliament). In this way, a constitution provides a framework for how politics and government work in a country, and as such is a key institution in political science.

Informal institutions also play a major role in structuring political systems. These institutions may be based on traditions, customs and norms that are not written down but are nonetheless binding. The United Kingdom is an excellent example of this type of system. Although the country does not have a single written constitution like most other countries, it does have a number of texts, laws, judicial principles and conventions which together make up what is often referred to as the UK's "unwritten constitution". These unwritten rules and conventions can have a big impact on the way government works. For example, although there is no written law stipulating that the Prime Minister must be the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons, it is a widely accepted convention that is almost as binding as a written law. In this sense, informal institutions are just as important for understanding how politics works as formal institutions.

Within political science, various sub-fields highlight particular aspects of institutions, adding to our understanding of their role and functioning. For example, comparative political science examines how institutions in different political systems influence governance, emphasising the importance of context. International politics, on the other hand, looks at institutions at the global level, such as the UN or the WTO, which shape relations between nations and the resolution of conflicts. Political theory offers a more conceptual perspective, exploring the ideas and principles, such as justice and democracy, that underpin the creation and operation of institutions. On the other hand, public policy studies how institutions shape the design and implementation of policies, revealing how institutional structure can affect policy outcomes. Finally, public administration focuses on the internal workings of government institutions, addressing issues of efficiency and management. Together, these subfields illuminate different aspects of institutions, offering a more complete and nuanced picture of their role in political science.

Stephen Krasner

Stephen D. Krasner, a distinguished professor of political science, defined international regimes in an influential way in his work "International Regimes" (1983). According to him, an international regime is a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given area of international relations.

Krasner has identified free trade as an area where we can see this kind of regime in action. The rules that codify free trade, such as those established by the World Trade Organisation, can be seen as an international institution. These rules govern the way in which countries interact in trade matters and have an impact on each country's trade policy.

For Krasner and other regime theorists, regimes are not just formal international organisations but also norms and rules that can exist outside any formal structure. Moreover, these regimes can be influential even if they are not always perfectly respected; their mere existence can influence the behaviour of states.

Institutions are rules, norms and procedures that focus on international behaviour: "'international regimes' are the 'rules, norms, principles, and procedures that focus expectations regarding international behaviour'". This definition is a classic characterisation of international regimes in the field of political science, according to which they are made up of rules, norms, principles and procedures that focus on expectations regarding international behaviour. These regimes may be formalised through international organisations and treaties, but they may also manifest themselves through less formal norms and customs. These formal or informal institutions help structure international interactions by establishing common expectations and providing mechanisms for cooperation and conflict resolution. For example, an international regime such as the World Trade Organisation establishes rules for international trade and provides mechanisms for resolving trade disputes. While international regimes cannot always guarantee compliance (states can and do sometimes derogate from their obligations), their existence can influence the behaviour of states by providing acceptable standards of behaviour and creating pressure for compliance.

When a State ratifies an international convention such as the Convention against Torture, this creates expectations about its behaviour. By ratifying the Convention, the State agrees to abide by the norms and standards set out in the Convention. It undertakes not to commit torture, to take measures to prevent torture on its territory and to bring to justice those who commit acts of torture. This means the State must modify its internal behaviour to comply with these international standards. This may involve implementing new laws or policies, training its security forces to prevent the use of torture, or investigating and prosecuting alleged perpetrators of torture. If a state fails to meet these obligations, it may face international pressure or sanctions. In this way, international conventions, as institutions, help shape states' behaviour on the international stage.

Douglass North

Douglas North, an American economist who won the Nobel Prize in 1993, provided a highly influential definition of institutions in his book "Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance": "the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, [...] the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction" "reduce uncertainty by providing a structure to everyday life. [...] define and limit the set of choices of individuals".

He described them as "the rules of the game in a society" or, more formally, as "the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction". According to North, institutions play a crucial role in reducing uncertainty by providing structure to everyday life. They enable individuals to have reasonable expectations about the consequences of their actions, thus facilitating cooperation and exchange.

In addition, North pointed out that institutions define and limit people's choices. They do this by establishing rules that encourage certain behaviours and penalise or prohibit others. For example, laws against theft discourage individuals from stealing by establishing penalties for this behaviour. Overall, this perspective emphasises the role of institutions as structures that guide and constrain human behaviour, and stresses their importance for the functioning of a society and for economic performance.

Institutionalism, whether in political science, sociology, economics or other disciplines, emphasises the role of institutions - defined as sets of rules, norms, procedures and practices - in structuring individual and collective actions. Institutions, in this framework, are seen as providing the 'framework' or 'script' for behaviour. They establish rules and norms that guide and constrain individuals' choices, define the roles and responsibilities of different actors, and facilitate coordination and cooperation between them. For example, a political constitution may establish rules for the electoral process, define the roles of the president, parliament and the courts, and establish procedures for creating new laws. These rules and procedures help to structure the behaviour of political actors and facilitate democratic governance. Institutionalism is therefore concerned with understanding how institutions influence behaviour, how they evolve and change over time, and how they affect social, political and economic outcomes.

Institutionalism offers a perspective that complements and nuances the approach based on the rationality of actors and the interest-based explanation of action. While these approaches emphasise the idea that individuals act according to their personal interests and seek to maximise their gains, institutionalism adds a further layer of complexity by showing how institutions can influence, restrict or shape these actions and choices. Institutions define rules and norms of acceptable behaviour, create incentives and sanctions for certain types of action, and establish procedures and structures that can facilitate or hinder certain forms of interaction. Consequently, even if actors act rationally and guided by their interests, their actions are nevertheless structured and constrained by the institutional context in which they find themselves. In other words, institutionalism recognises that actors are both shaped by and shape the institutions that surround them. They are 'embedded' in institutional structures that influence their perceptions, expectations and strategies. This approach therefore helps to shed light on the complex dynamics between individuals and institutions, and between agency and structure, in social, political and economic life.

Institutionalism emphasises the role of institutions as structures that influence and constrain individual choice and action. By establishing certain rules, norms and procedures, institutions can limit the number of options available to actors. For example, the rules of a political system may determine who can stand for election, how votes are counted, or who has the right to participate in political decision-making. Similarly, in a company, organisational rules and procedures may determine who has the right to make certain decisions, how information is shared, or how conflicts are resolved. By limiting the field of possibilities, institutions help to structure behaviour and make actions more predictable. In this way, they can reduce uncertainty, facilitate coordination and cooperation, and contribute to stability and social order. However, they can also be a source of constraint and conflict, and their influence on behaviour can be contested and changed.

James March and Johan Olsen

James G. March and Johan P. Olsen formulated an influential definition of institutions in their work on the "new institutionalism". In Elaborating the "New Institutionalism", they define institutions as "collections of structures, rules and standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in political life".

According to them, institutions are "collections of structures, rules and standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in political life". This definition highlights several key aspects of institutions. First, institutions are made up of structures, rules and procedures - they are not simply formal organisations or entities, but also sets of practices and norms that guide behaviour. Secondly, institutions have a 'partially autonomous' role in political life. This means that they are not simply passive tools used by political actors, but can actively influence political behaviour and outcomes. For example, the rules of a political system can influence who is elected, what policies are adopted, and how conflicts are resolved. March and Olsen are best known for their 'new institutionalism' approach to political science, which emphasises the role of institutions as structures that shape political behaviour, and how institutions themselves change and evolve.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are sets of step-by-step instructions that employees in an organisation must follow when carrying out routine or routine tasks. These procedures are designed to improve efficiency, ensure consistency and reduce errors or oversights. In the institutional context, these SOPs can significantly impact the behaviour of individuals within the organisation. By establishing routine and predictability, SOPs shape employees' expectations of how they should behave and complete their tasks. They can also create an organisational culture that influences how employees interact with each other and external parties. However, it is important to note that although SOPs are generally designed to be followed, they are not always strictly adhered to. Employees may sometimes deviate from SOPs for a variety of reasons, such as the need to respond to unexpected situations, conflicts with other rules or standards, or perceptions that certain procedures are inefficient or unnecessary. As a result, the interaction between SOPs and human behaviour can be complex and dynamic.

It can be said that standard operating procedures (SOPs), as an integral part of institutions, play an autonomous role in political life. They establish a framework that guides the behaviour of political actors, influences decision-making processes and helps shape political outcomes. For example, the parliamentary rules governing debate and voting on bills can influence the outcome of these processes. Similarly, voting and counting procedures in elections can impact who is elected. These procedures are therefore an important part of the "political game" and can have a significant impact on how politics works. Although these procedures have an autonomous role, they are also influenced by political actors who may seek to change or circumvent these rules to achieve their objectives. The interaction between institutional procedures and political actors is, therefore, dynamic and reciprocal.

Types of institution

Establishing a typology of institutions offers several advantages, not least in making it easier to understand and analyse the complex political landscape. By categorising institutions according to their function, structure or level of action, whether local, national or international, it is possible to make their study more accessible and manageable. In addition, a typology enables relevant comparisons to be made between different institutions, within the same country or between different countries. This can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of different institutional configurations and contribute to our understanding of the impact of institutions on political and socio-economic outcomes. Furthermore, by classifying institutions into different types, we are able to develop theories about how they function and predict their behaviour, which can inform our knowledge of the differences between, for example, democratic and authoritarian institutions, or the way in which economic institutions influence economic development. Finally, knowledge of different types of institutions can guide policy decisions and reform efforts. If research reveals that certain types of institutions are more effective in promoting economic development or political stability, this information could inform efforts to modify existing institutions or create new ones. However, it should be remembered that any typology, despite its value, simplifies reality and may not cover the full diversity and complexity of real institutions.

Institutions exist at various levels and have distinct functions and scopes, and each of these levels of institutions plays an important role in structuring social, economic and political interaction:

• At the international level, we have institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations Organisation (UNO). These institutions establish rules and standards governing relations between nations.
• At the transnational level, there are examples such as the codes of conduct of multinational companies. These codes are designed to monitor and regulate the behaviour of companies on a global scale, particularly with regard to the distribution of goods and services. They seek to ensure that certain working conditions and rights are respected in the various countries where companies operate. They represent a kind of international regime at the private company level, which concerns both the producer and the supplier.
• At national level, institutions include constitutions, parliaments, political parties, electoral systems, etc. These institutions structure and regulate the world of work. These institutions structure and regulate the operation of government and politics within a specific country.
• Finally, at the sub-national, regional or sectoral level, there are institutions such as industry-level collective agreements. These institutions operate at a more localised level, governing specific sectors of the economy or specific regions of a country.

In the field of political science, several types of institutions are generally distinguished, including but not limited to:

• Political institutions: These institutions structure and govern the operation of government and politics in the broadest sense. This includes government bodies such as parliament, the executive and the judiciary, as well as political parties, trade unions and sometimes even the media.
• Administrative institutions: These are the organisations responsible for implementing the laws and policies decided by the political institutions. This includes ministries, government agencies, police forces, the army, etc.
• Economic institutions: These institutions govern the economic life of a country or region. This includes banks, stock exchanges, financial regulators, etc.
• Social institutions: These are the organisations that govern social and cultural life. This may include organisations such as schools, universities, churches, social clubs, etc.
• Legislative institutions: These are responsible for creating laws. This includes bodies such as parliament or congress.
• Judicial institutions: These are responsible for interpreting and applying laws. This includes courts and other judicial bodies.
• International institutions: These are the organisations that govern relations between nations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the European Union, etc.
• Non-governmental institutions: These are independent organisations that have a significant impact on politics, society and the economy, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), pressure groups, the media, etc.

There is also a category of less formal institutions that play a significant role in global governance. For example, the World Economic Forum in Davos, while having a certain formality since it is an annual meeting, has informal aspects in terms of its composition. It is not clear who the precise members are, which makes it difficult to codify very formal rules. Despite this informality, the forum remains an influential platform where world leaders, business leaders and intellectuals can meet, exchange ideas and shape global agendas. Another example is the G20, an informal group made up of the world's 19 largest economies and the European Union. Although it has no formal enforcement powers, the G20 plays an important role in international governance by facilitating dialogue and cooperation on global economic and financial issues. Its informal nature allows it to address broader issues than those usually dealt with by more formal institutions, but it also makes its outcomes less binding and more subject to the political will of its members. These examples show that even informal institutions can have a significant impact on global politics, despite - or perhaps because of - their lack of formality.

The terms 'organisations' and 'institutions' are often used interchangeably in everyday discourse, although their meanings differ slightly in the context of political science. Social actors, political actors and interest organisations can be seen as both institutions and organisations. As such, they act as agents of political change. When we consider them as institutions, we focus on how they structure and regulate behaviour within a society or political system. We examine how their rules, procedures and norms influence the behaviour of individuals and groups, and how these structures can change over time. When we consider them as organisations, we focus instead on their role as actors in the political system. It looks at how they use their power and influence to achieve their objectives, how they interact with other actors and organisations, and how these interactions can contribute to institutional change. In short, although the terms 'institution' and 'organisation' may sometimes be used interchangeably, they highlight different aspects of the role of actors in the political system. Political scientists may choose to focus on one or the other aspect, or to consider them simultaneously, depending on their specific research questions.

How do institutions influence results?

Institutions have a key role in shaping policy and can influence policy in three main ways:

1. By influencing the capabilities of different actors: Institutions can confer or restrict the power of different actors depending on the rules and procedures they establish. For example, a constitution may determine the government's responsibilities and powers granted to different bodies or individuals. This can affect the ability of these actors to implement policies or influence the political process.
2. By altering stakeholder preferences: Institutions can also shape stakeholder preferences by defining what is considered acceptable or desirable in a given society. For example, social norms, which are a form of institution, can influence individuals' policy preferences by establishing what is considered good or bad behaviour.
3. By influencing the strategies of individuals or states: Finally, institutions can affect the strategies that individuals or states choose to adopt in order to achieve their objectives. For example, electoral rules can influence a political party's strategy during an election campaign. Similarly, international treaties can influence a state's diplomatic or foreign policy strategy.

Institutions are powerful forces that can shape the political landscape by influencing political actors' capabilities, preferences and strategies.

Influence of institutions on political power

Institutions play a major role in determining and limiting political power in any society. Here's how they can influence political power:

• Structure of government: Institutions can define the structure of government and distribute power between the different branches of government, such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. This can have an impact on the balance of power and prevent abuses of power. For example, a country's constitution is an institution that clearly establishes how the government is to be organised and how power is to be exercised.
• Regulation of political behaviour: Institutions can regulate the behaviour of political actors through laws, standards and regulations. This may include rules on campaign finance, electoral conduct, lobbying and other aspects of the political process.
• Public opinion formation: Certain institutions, such as the media or education, can influence public opinion, which in turn can influence political power. For example, the media can highlight certain issues, shape public debate and influence public opinion, which in turn can impact politics.
• Facilitating civic participation: Institutions can also facilitate or hinder citizens' participation in political life. For example, voting laws, voting procedures and campaign finance rules can all influence who can participate in the political process and how.
• Monitoring the implementation of policies: Institutions such as the judiciary or regulatory bodies can monitor the implementation of policies and ensure that political power is exercised in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.

In the context of political science, institutions can play a central role in structuring and modulating power relations, whether within a state or between different states.

• NAFTA - North-American Free Trade Agreement

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), illustrates how an institution can influence the power of different actors in a political system. The aim of these agreements was to create a single market between the United States, Canada and Mexico, where goods could circulate without tariffs. This has undoubtedly strengthened the power of multinational companies, allowing them to move production to regions with lower labour costs, such as Mexico. This has opened up opportunities to maximise profits by taking advantage of geographical proximity to keep transport costs relatively low. This is a striking example of how institutions can reshape the political and economic landscape, redistributing power and creating new dynamics.

Trade agreements such as NAFTA have given multinational companies greater power, mainly through their increased ability to relocate production. This power is largely due to the mobility of companies, while workers are generally more tied to a specific locality. The increased mobility of companies allows them to respond to costs and working conditions by relocating production to locations where these factors are more favourable. This creates a dynamic where companies can potentially threaten to relocate production if workers demand better working conditions, higher wages or other improvements. This can lead to downward pressure on wages and working conditions as workers are forced to compete internationally.

• United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is another body where institutions play a major role in the distribution of political power. The five permanent members of the Security Council - France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China - each have the right to veto any substantive resolution. This means that they can block any decision with which they disagree, regardless of the support that decision may receive from the other members of the Security Council. This institutional arrangement gives considerable power to the five permanent members, allowing them to exert a disproportionate influence on international policy. It also allows them to use their veto power to counter the potential emergence of new global or regional powers. For example, they can use their veto to block the admission of new permanent members, such as India or Brazil, or to counter the international ambitions of countries such as Iran.

The influence of institutions on preferences

Institutions play a key role in the formation and evolution of individual and collective preferences. On the one hand, they can influence preferences through the socialisation process. For example, education as an institution plays a crucial role in shaping people's values, attitudes and beliefs. Religious, cultural and family institutions also play a major role in shaping individual preferences. On the other hand, institutions also have an indirect effect on preferences by determining the material position of the individual or agent in the economy and politics. For example, economic institutions such as the labour market, social protection systems and tax policies can influence individuals' preferences in terms of resource allocation or public policy. Similarly, political institutions, such as the electoral system, can influence people's preferences in terms of political participation and support for different political ideologies. Institutions have a considerable influence on the way in which individuals perceive their options and make their choices, and therefore play a central role in the formation and evolution of preferences.

The socialisation effect is a process by which individuals acquire attitudes, beliefs, norms and behaviours specific to a given group or society. In the institutional context, this socialisation effect is often intensified by strong institutional norms and regular interactions between members of the institution. For example, an institution such as a university or a company may have a very strong organisational culture which influences the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of its members. Through regular and repeated interactions over time, individuals can internalise the institution's norms and values, which can influence the way they think and behave, both inside and outside the institution. Political institutions can also have a socialising effect. For example, a political party may have strong norms and ideologies that influence the beliefs and behaviours of its members. Similarly, government institutions may have norms and procedures that influence the way public servants think and act. This can be particularly important in shaping public policy and governance.

A key phenomenon in global politics and economic development is the influence of global elites on the political and economic preferences of national elites, particularly in developing countries. Through repeated interactions, for example at international conferences or meetings in Washington, elites in developing countries can be exposed to ideas, norms and beliefs that are predominant among global elites, such as the belief in the benefits of free trade. Although they may initially be reluctant to embrace these ideas because of their own national or sectoral interests, these elites may end up being convinced by the dominant discourse, especially if they see evidence of its success elsewhere. These regular interactions can therefore lead to a kind of 'ideological convergence' or political socialisation, where elites in developing countries gradually adopt the beliefs and preferences of global elites. This in turn can influence the policies implemented in their home countries, and can potentially have significant impacts on the economic and political development of these countries.

A common trend observed in many countries making the transition to democracy is that military elites, who have often played an important role in authoritarian regimes, may be reluctant to cede power to civilian authorities. They may fear the loss of their autonomy, privileged status and material advantages. The example of Spain in 1981 is a good illustration of this dynamic. Despite the transition to democracy initiated in 1975 after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco, certain elements of the armed forces tried to overthrow the democratically elected government in a coup d'état. However, the coup d'état failed, and Spain continued along the road to democracy. Egypt offers another example of this dynamic, where the military negotiated a privileged position in the post-revolutionary regime. After the 2011 revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, the military played an important role in the new regime. This led to tensions and conflicts with civilian forces seeking to establish a more open and inclusive democracy. These examples show that the transition to democracy can be a complex and often contested process, with different groups struggling for power and trying to preserve their interests. Political institutions, notably the army and other structures inherited from previous regimes, play a key role in this process.

The modernisation of the Spanish armed forces and their integration into NATO in the 1970s played an important role in the country's democratic transition. Through this integration and joint exercises with other NATO armed forces, Spain's military elites were exposed to new military norms and practices, in which the military is subordinate to political power. This socialisation may have influenced the preferences of Spain's military elites and helped them to understand their role in a democratic system. This is an excellent example of how international institutions and interactions between countries can influence internal political transformations. By participating in these joint exercises and engaging with their NATO counterparts, the Spanish military has been able to see how armies operate in established democracies. This experience has probably helped to shape their understanding of the appropriate role of the army in a democracy and to modify their preferences accordingly. Thus, this process of socialisation and interaction played a key role in redefining the preferences and attitudes of Spain's military elites, facilitating the country's transition to democracy. This is an excellent example of how institutions - in this case, NATO - can influence the political process at national level.

A complex situation arose during the debt crisis in Greece, a member of the European Monetary Union. Normally, a country with a large budget deficit and high public debt faces higher interest rates from international investors. This happens because the risk associated with investing in that country increases, and investors demand a risk premium to compensate for this additional risk. However, in the case of Greece, membership of the European Monetary Union has changed this dynamic somewhat. As a member of the eurozone, Greece had access to relatively low interest rates thanks to the perception that the euro, backed by the European Central Bank and strong eurozone economies such as Germany and France, was a stable currency. This allowed Greece to continue borrowing at relatively low interest rates despite its large budget deficits. However, when the reality of Greece's budget problems became apparent and investor confidence began to falter, Greece was faced with a debt crisis, with interest rates on sovereign debt rising rapidly. The crisis eventually required an international rescue plan and draconian economic reforms imposed by the troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund). This illustrates how institutions, in this case the European Monetary Union, can influence economic and political dynamics at national level, sometimes in unexpected ways.

Greece's membership of the European Monetary Union has enabled the country to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy while benefiting from low interest rates on its debt. This is due to the perception that eurozone countries share a certain security and stability, which has been supported by the European Central Bank. However, in the long term, this led to an accumulation of unsustainable debt which eventually led to Greece's financial crisis. Once Greece's financial problems were exposed and investors began to doubt the country's ability to repay its debts, interest rates rose significantly, exacerbating the country's financial problems. What happened in Greece is an example of how institutions, in this case the European Monetary Union, can affect the behaviour of member countries and the political decisions they take. It is also an example of how these behaviours can have unforeseen and potentially devastating consequences.

The influence of institutions on strategies and interactions

From a work by Davis entitled International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization, we can understand how the institutional context of multilateral international trade negotiations influences state strategies and outcomes. Davis's research demonstrates that international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), can influence the negotiating strategies of member states, as well as the outcomes of negotiations. The WTO is an institution that promotes the liberalisation of international trade by establishing rules for trade and providing a platform for trade negotiations.

In trade negotiations, WTO member states can adopt different strategies to defend their interests. They may choose to focus on specific areas, such as agriculture, or adopt a broader approach, linking several issues together. For example, a country might be prepared to make concessions on agricultural market access in exchange for better market access for its industrial products. According to Davis, the WTO encourages 'issue linking', i.e. the inclusion of several negotiating subjects in a single set of discussions. This allows member states to build broader coalitions and reach more favourable agreements. For example, a country with a strong agricultural sector could ally itself with a country with a strong industrial sector to obtain mutually beneficial concessions. However, Davis notes that the link between issues can also make negotiations more complex and more difficult to conclude. This may partly explain why multilateral trade negotiations are often long and difficult. International institutions such as the WTO can influence the negotiating strategies of member states and the outcome of negotiations. They can encourage states to adopt more complex strategies and to link several issues together, but this can also make negotiations more complex and more difficult to conclude.

Davis highlights that when trade negotiations are conducted on a sector-by-sector basis, developed countries often find it difficult to liberalise their agricultural sectors. This is due to the presence of powerful political and economic interests that resist liberalisation, as can be seen with the Swiss Farmers' Association in Switzerland, or the French farmers who manage to protect the European market from imported agricultural products. These interest groups can significantly influence agricultural policy and resist pressure to open up the market.

When negotiations are conducted on a sectoral basis, it can be very difficult to achieve trade liberalisation, particularly in the agricultural sector. This is due to the powerful political and economic interests that can exist within this sector, which can strongly resist any attempt at liberalisation. In addition, issues relating to food security, rural employment and environmental protection can also make liberalisation of the agricultural sector particularly complex.

When an institutional innovation is put in place through the concept of issue linkage, a more or less formal structure designed to bring together different issues, the negotiation framework is broadened. Instead of negotiating issue by issue and sector by sector, the liberalisation of one sector, such as services, can be linked to other issues. This approach can facilitate negotiations, as it allows the interests of different players to be considered and the gains and losses between different sectors to be balanced. For example, a state might be prepared to accept liberalisation in a sector with defensive interests if, in return, it obtains gains in another sector with offensive interests.

The author shows that creating a link between agriculture and services can encourage and promote trade liberalisation. This is because a state may be prepared to accept liberalisation in a sector where it has defensive interests (e.g. agriculture), if in return it obtains gains in another sector where it has offensive interests (e.g. services). This approach makes it possible to balance gains and losses between different sectors, thereby facilitating trade negotiations. This is what is known as "issue linkage", a key mechanism in multilateral negotiations.

The idea of creating links or "issue linkage" between different areas of negotiation makes it possible to rethink how interest groups mobilise. Instead of opposing each other on specific issues, different groups can collaborate and lobby together to achieve common goals. For example, an industrial sector that benefits from trade liberalisation could lobby jointly with an agricultural sector to support the liberalisation of agriculture. Industry would benefit from the opening up of agricultural markets and agriculture would benefit from the opening up of industrial markets. This can lead to stronger mobilisation for trade liberalisation in general. It can reconfigure the political landscape and create new alliances between players with common interests. It can also help overcome obstacles to liberalisation by making it easier to negotiate compromises. For example, if a sector is reluctant to liberalise, it may be more willing to do so if other sectors are also open to competition. However, it must also be borne in mind that this process can give rise to conflicts between interest groups who feel aggrieved by these arrangements and who may mobilise to oppose them. Managing these tensions is, therefore, a key factor in the success of linkage strategies.

The state may have different preferences in different areas. For example, it may prefer not to liberalise the agricultural sector to protect farmers' interests. Still, it may be more willing to liberalise the services sector if it sees an economic advantage in doing so. The introduction of the "issue linkage" mechanism, or the creation of links between different areas of negotiation, can modify the State's strategy. Even if the state's preferences remain the same, it may be prepared to accept costs (such as the impact of liberalisation on the agricultural sector) if this enables it to obtain gains (such as opening up the services sector to international competition). This shows how institutions, even informal ones, can influence national strategies by reconfiguring the negotiating stakes. However, it is important to note that this process can also give rise to conflicts and tensions, particularly if certain stakeholders feel aggrieved by the changes. Managing these conflicts is crucial to the success of issue linkage strategies.

Neo-institutionalism recognises the importance of conflicts of interest in politics and the economy but focuses on how institutions structure these conflicts and determine their outcomes. By their very nature, institutions create rules of the game that may favour some actors at the expense of others. This means that although interests and resources can influence political and economic dynamics, the institutional structure determines who has power and controls resources. Institutions can either reinforce existing power inequalities or help to mitigate them. The institutionalist perspective is, therefore, an important contribution to our understanding of politics and economics, as it highlights the central role of institutions in determining power relations and political and economic outcomes. This approach adds a further dimension to the analysis of conflicts of interest by showing how institutional structures can influence actors' strategies and the outcomes of their actions.

Institutionnalisme-historique

L'institutionnalisme historique est une approche des sciences sociales qui met l'accent sur l'importance du rôle des institutions sur le comportement des individus et des sociétés. Cette approche est particulièrement utilisée en science politique et en sociologie. L'institutionnalisme historique met l'accent sur la manière dont les institutions, qui sont souvent établies en réponse à des crises ou à des conflits, peuvent avoir des conséquences durables qui façonnent le comportement futur des individus et des sociétés. Cette approche reconnaît que les institutions sont en constante évolution et que leur forme et leur fonction peuvent changer avec le temps.

L'un des concepts clés de l'institutionnalisme historique est l'idée de la "dépendance de sentier" (path dependence). Ce concept suggère que les décisions prises dans le passé peuvent avoir des effets durables et influencer les choix futurs. En d'autres termes, une fois qu'une institution est en place, elle est susceptible de perdurer, même si les circonstances ont changé. Un autre concept important est celui de "points critiques" ou "moments critiques" (critical junctures). Ce sont des moments où des décisions significatives sont prises qui peuvent avoir des conséquences durables sur le développement d'une institution ou d'une société.

L'institutionnalisme historique offre donc une manière d'analyser et de comprendre comment les institutions façonnent les sociétés, en mettant l'accent sur l'importance du contexte historique et en reconnaissant que les institutions sont souvent le produit de processus historiques complexes et de conflits sociaux.

Unanticipated - unintended consequences

Neo-institutionalism refers to a resurgence and new focus on institutions in the social sciences from the 1980s onwards, following a period when functionalism and behaviourism dominated. However, the concept of 'unintended' or 'unanticipated' consequences has a broader scope and is embedded in many theoretical approaches, including institutionalism. The concept of unintended consequences, originally formulated by the sociologist Robert K. Merton, refers to outcomes that are not those initially anticipated by an action or decision. These consequences may be positive, negative or simply unforeseen. For example, a government policy may have unanticipated social or economic consequences that were not foreseen when it was conceived.

In the context of historical institutionalism, unintended consequences can be linked to the way in which institutions are constructed and evolve. For example, an institution created to solve a certain problem may have unanticipated side-effects that influence other aspects of society. The emphasis on unintended consequences highlights the complexity of social and political systems, and how decisions taken in one area can affect other areas in sometimes surprising ways. It also reflects that institutions are constantly evolving and their effects can change over time.

Neo-institutionalism has brought a new perspective to the way institutions are studied:

• Importance of institutions: Neo-institutionalism considers that institutions play a crucial role in structuring social, political and economic life. They are not simply arenas in which social and political actors pursue their interests, but structures that shape and influence these interests.
• Autonomy of institutions: Neo-institutionalists argue that institutions have a degree of autonomy from social, economic and political forces. In other words, they can influence behaviour and outcomes independently of the interests of the actors within them.
• Formal and informal institutions: Neo-institutionalism has broadened the scope of research to include not only formal institutions (such as governments, laws and formal organisations) but also informal institutions (such as social norms, customs and unwritten practices). This reflects the recognition that behaviour is influenced by a wider range of structures than those formally codified.
• The role of time and history: Some neo-institutionalists, notably those of historical institutionalism, emphasise the role of time and history in the formation of institutions. They argue that decisions taken at one point in time can have lasting effects and can shape the future trajectory of an institution, a phenomenon often referred to as 'path dependence'.

These features distinguish neo-institutionalism from previous institutionalist approaches and make it a key approach to understanding governance, politics and social behaviour in the contemporary world.

Institutionalism, including neo-institutionalism, focuses more on the role of institutions as structures that determine the behaviour of actors and shape social and political outcomes. It is clearly distinct from behaviourism in several respects:

• The role of institutions: In contrast to behaviourism, which focuses on individual behaviour and its influence on social and political systems, institutionalism emphasises the role of institutions. Institutions are seen as having an influence on the behaviour of individuals and groups, as well as on political and social outcomes.
• Structure and agency: While behaviourism tends to focus on agency - the actions and decisions of individuals - institutionalism considers the structure of institutions to be paramount. Institutions are seen as defining the rules of the game and limiting the options available to actors.
• Stability versus change: Behaviourism often focuses on change, seeking to explain how and why individual behaviour changes. Institutionalism, on the other hand, often focuses on stability, showing how institutions persist over time, even in the absence of popular support or economic performance.
• Individual versus contextual factors: While behaviourism tends to focus on individual factors such as attitudes, beliefs and preferences, institutionalism focuses more on contextual factors, in particular the way in which institutions structure and influence behaviour.

So while behaviourism and institutionalism are both important approaches to understanding politics and society, they focus on different aspects of these systems.

Functionalism holds that institutions exist to perform certain functions or solve certain problems in a society. This perspective sees institutions as rational and effective solutions to problems facing society. Institutionalism, on the other hand, does not take this approach. It does not see institutions solely in terms of their functions or their effectiveness. It recognises that institutions have profound effects on society that go far beyond their intended functions or their effectiveness in solving specific problems. It focuses on how institutions shape the behaviour of individuals and groups, how they structure social and political interactions, and how they can produce outcomes that are neither intended nor necessarily desired. Furthermore, unlike functionalism, historical institutionalism recognises that institutions can often persist even when they are no longer effective or responsive to current problems. This is known as path dependency - the idea that past decisions or events have a lasting impact and shape future trajectories. In other words, once an institution is in place, it can be very difficult to change or remove it, even if it no longer fulfils its original function effectively.

The functionalist perspective puts forward the idea that institutions are deliberately created and maintained because they have beneficial effects. For example, a legal system might be set up because it helps to resolve conflicts in an orderly fashion, or an education system might be set up because it promotes the development of the skills and knowledge needed in a society. Rational actors, seeking to solve these problems or achieve these goals, would therefore create these institutions because they recognise the functional benefits they bring. Historical institutionalism, however, emphasises that institutions are not always created in such a rational or far-sighted way. There may be historical factors, power relations, accidents or unforeseen events that play a major role in the creation and evolution of institutions. Institutions can also have effects that were not foreseen or intended, and these effects can in turn influence the way institutions develop and change over time.

The general assumption in many economic and political models is that when institutions no longer adequately reflect the interests of actors, they are modified to return to an equilibrium. This is the idea of "rational choice" or "institutional equilibrium". However, historical institutionalism challenges this hypothesis. It points out that institutional change can be difficult and costly, and that there is often strong resistance to change. In addition, actors may not have a full understanding of their own interests or how institutions affect those interests, which can also hinder institutional change. Furthermore, even if institutions do change, they are not necessarily changed in a way that perfectly reflects the interests of stakeholders. On the contrary, institutional change may be the result of compromises, power struggles, complex historical processes, and so on. As a result, institutions may continue to have forms and functions that are not optimal from the point of view of efficiency or utility. Finally, historical institutionalism emphasises that institutions can have important effects on the interests and behaviour of actors. For example, they can influence the way actors perceive their interests, the way they interact with each other, the strategies they adopt, and so on. In this way, institutions and stakeholders are in constant interaction, each influencing the other in dynamic and often unpredictable ways.

The idea of historical institutionalism is that institutions have their own 'inertia' and are often difficult to change. Even if they are no longer perfectly aligned with the interests of the actors, they can persist because of various factors, such as the costs of change, resistance from groups that benefit from the status quo, or simply the force of habit and tradition. Furthermore, historical institutionalism emphasises that institutions are not necessarily the result of a rational and deliberate process aimed at finding the best solution to a given problem. They may be the result of complex historical processes, interactions between different actors and interests, compromises, power struggles, accidents and so on. Institutions may therefore have forms and functions that are not necessarily optimal or even logical from the point of view of efficiency or utility. For example, a political or economic system may contain elements that seem irrational or inefficient, but which are the result of historical compromises between different social groups or the persistence of historical traditions. Institutions can also have unexpected or unintended effects that impact how they function and evolve.

Historical institutionalism takes time into account when analysing institutions. It recognises that institutions are not static, but evolve over time, and that processes of institutional change can be long and complex. This long-term perspective makes it possible to take account of the unanticipated or unintended consequences of setting up an institution. For example, when actors set up an institution, they may not fully anticipate how it will affect their behaviour or interests in the future. They may also not anticipate how the institution will interact with other institutions or social, economic or political factors. Moreover, once an institution is in place, it may have 'institutional inertia', meaning that it may be difficult to change, even if actors realise that it is having unintended consequences. Therefore, historical institutionalism emphasises the importance of taking into account the long-term, unanticipated and unintended consequences of institutions. It also means that institutions may need to be reviewed and revised over time, as the interests of actors and social, economic and political conditions change.

Bo Rothstein in his 1992 work emphasises the influence of labour-market institutions on working-class strength, particularly in relation to union density. The Ghent system, named after the Belgian town where it was first introduced, is a feature of some unemployment insurance systems. In the Ghent system, the trade unions play a central role in the administration of unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, it is the unions that administer the benefits for their members, rather than the state or a government agency. Ghent systems exist in several countries, including Sweden, Finland and Belgium. According to Rothstein, the Ghent system fosters a stronger working class because it encourages union membership. If the unions manage unemployment benefits, workers have an extra incentive to join a union. This can lead to higher rates of unionisation and, therefore, greater collective strength for the working class. This is a good example of how institutions - in this case, the unemployment insurance system - can influence behaviour and outcomes for specific groups of actors in society.

It seems logical to assume that left-wing governments, generally favourable to workers' rights, would be more inclined to implement a Ghent system. However, it is important to note that the implementation of a Ghent system may depend on various factors, including the historical, political and social context, as well as the existing legal and economic system. Furthermore, adopting a de Ghent system may not be as straightforward as it seems. Firstly, it requires the trade unions to have the organisational capacity and financial resources to manage the unemployment insurance system effectively. Secondly, it requires the government to be prepared to hand over this responsibility to the unions. Finally, it should be noted that the introduction of a Ghent system may have unintended consequences. For example, it could potentially polarise the labour market between union and non-union workers, or it could give unions disproportionate power. In short, while the introduction of a Ghent system can theoretically strengthen the labour movement, its practical implementation can be more complex and dependent on many contextual factors.

What emerges from Bo Rothstein's observation is that political and historical reality is often more complex than theoretical models might suggest. The motivations of governments to adopt certain policies can depend on many factors, including long-term strategic objectives, internal and external political pressures, and specific historical circumstances. In the case of France, the introduction of unemployment insurance by a liberal government could be explained by a desire to control the labour movement, rather than to strengthen it. Liberal governments may have seen the Ghent system as a way of channelling trade union activity into a more formal and controlled framework. It may also have been seen as a way of pacifying the labour movement by offering certain advantages, while retaining overall control over economic policy. The French unions, with their tradition of independence from the state, may have seen this manoeuvre as an attempt to co-opt them and so resisted. Consequently, the failure to introduce the Ghent system in France can be seen as a demonstration of how unanticipated consequences and the complex interplay of political interests can influence policy outcomes.

In the long term, this was to be detrimental to working class power in France, where union density was one of the lowest in the private sector at less than 10%. The movement to create institutions in 1905 in France, for example, may have had short-term reasons for its decisions. Still, it was not an intentional act that accounted for long-term developments and institutions favourable to workers in the long term. The players are not always clear about what is advantageous for them. Political decisions are often taken in response to short-term considerations and do not always take account of the long-term consequences. This can be due to a multitude of factors, including immediate political pressures, strategic miscalculations, or simply a lack of understanding of the long-term implications of a given policy.

In the case of France and the Ghent system, it seems that the decisions taken by the liberal governments and the reaction of the trade unions had unintended consequences which ultimately weakened the power of the working class. This is a perfect example of how unintended consequences and errors of judgement can have a major impact on a country's political and economic development. However, it is important to note that even if actors are not always clear about what is in their long-term interest, this does not necessarily mean that they are acting irrationally. On the contrary, they often do their best to navigate a complex and uncertain environment, relying on the information and resources available to them at any given time. This can sometimes lead to mistakes, but it is an inevitable part of the political process.

The historical institutionalist approach emphasises that political and economic institutions have lasting and sometimes unforeseen effects that may not be immediately apparent when they are created. This is a major criticism of functionalist approaches, which generally consider that institutions are created to solve specific problems and evolve or disappear when they change or are solved. In contrast, historical institutionalism argues that institutions tend to persist over time, even when they no longer effectively address the problems for which they were originally created, due to power dynamics, transaction costs and other factors. Moreover, this perspective also emphasises that institutions are not always created rationally or with foresight. On the contrary, they may be the product of impulsive political decisions, complex trade-offs or even pure coincidence. These circumstances can lead to institutional outcomes that are very different from what the original actors would have intended or desired, thus underlining the importance of historical context and contingencies in forming institutions.

Path dependence

The idea of 'path dependence' is a central concept in historical institutionalism. It refers to the idea that past decisions and existing institutions can shape and constrain future choices. This is because, once an institution or policy has been put in place, it often creates expectations, norms and investments that make change costly and difficult. In the context of political and economic institutions, this means that even if an institution is no longer optimal, or no longer serves the interests it was originally intended to serve, it may persist simply because it is difficult to change the status quo. Political, economic and social actors can adapt to these institutions and build their strategies and expectations around them, making any change potentially disruptive and costly.

The example of social security in the United States provides a good illustration of the concept of 'path dependence' in political science.

In the United States, the social security system was introduced in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression. It was designed to provide a safety net for older workers by providing a basic retirement income. However, the system was designed in such a way that it relied heavily on contributions from current workers to fund the benefits of current retirees. Over time, the demographics of the United States have changed, with an increasing proportion of older people compared to younger workers. This has led to increasing financial pressures on the social security system. However, despite the challenges facing the system, it is extremely difficult to reform or change it significantly. This is due in part to the dependence of current and future beneficiaries on social security, but also to the complexity of the system itself. Attempts at reform have often met with considerable political and public opposition. So while the US social security system may no longer be the most efficient or equitable given current demographic and economic realities, it persists largely because of path dependence. Past decisions have created an institution that is now difficult to change, despite its obvious problems.

William Sewell

Dans son article "Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology", l'auteur William H. Sewell Jr. discute l'idée de la dépendance au chemin ("path dependence"). Cette notion suggère que les décisions, événements ou résultats passés ont un impact significatif sur les décisions, événements ou résultats futurs.

Selon Sewell, cette dépendance au chemin n'est pas simplement une question d'événements passés qui limitent les options futures. Il met en évidence l'idée que ces dépendances historiques peuvent également ouvrir de nouvelles possibilités et chemins d'action qui n'étaient pas envisagés auparavant. De plus, ces dépendances au chemin ne sont pas simplement linéaires ou déterministes. Elles sont plutôt multidimensionnelles et complexes, avec de multiples chemins possibles qui peuvent être suivis à tout moment donné.

L'idée clé de la dépendance au chemin est que les structures et les événements historiques importent. Ils façonnent les trajectoires futures de façon significative. Les décisions prises dans le passé continuent d'affecter les options disponibles dans le présent, et ces décisions passées peuvent également avoir un impact sur l'avenir de façon inattendue. C'est pourquoi il est important de prendre en compte les processus historiques lors de l'étude des phénomènes sociaux.

James Mahoney

Dans l'article "Path Dependence in Historical Sociology" publié en 2000, James Mahoney définit la dépendance de chemin (ou "path dependence") comme caractérisant des séquences historiques spécifiques dans lesquelles des événements contingents mettent en mouvement des modèles institutionnels ou des chaînes d'événements qui ont des propriétés déterministes : « Path-dependence characterizes specifically those historical sequences in which contingent events set in motion institutional patterns or event chains that have deterministic properties ».

Selon Mahoney, ces événements contingents, aussi appelés événements critiques ou charnières, peuvent avoir des effets de grande ampleur et durables. Ces événements déclenchent une séquence de réactions en chaîne, entrainant la mise en place de nouvelles institutions ou de nouveaux modèles de comportement qui, une fois établis, sont difficilement modifiables.

Le concept de "path dependence" suggère donc qu'il est souvent difficile de dévier d'une trajectoire une fois qu'elle est établie, car les coûts d'une telle déviation peuvent être prohibitifs. De plus, même lorsque les circonstances changent, les institutions et les comportements créés par ces événements passés peuvent rester en place. Par conséquent, l'histoire et la séquence spécifique d'événements qui se sont produits peuvent avoir un impact profond et durable sur le cours futur des événements.

Le concept de dépendance de chemin (path dependence) dans la sociologie historique comprend cette idée d'un moment charnière, un événement initial, parfois appelé "point de basculement" ou "point critique", qui déclenche une série d'événements ultérieurs. Ce moment charnière peut sembler mineur ou non significatif à l'époque, mais il a le potentiel de déclencher une cascade d'événements qui se renforcent mutuellement. Une fois ce processus déclenché, il peut devenir auto-renforçant et difficile à inverser, même si les conditions originales qui ont conduit à l'événement initial ont changé. C'est ce qui est souvent appelé "verrouillage" (lock-in) dans la théorie de la dépendance de chemin. C'est un mécanisme par lequel une certaine structure, une fois établie, reste en place et influence le cours futur des événements, même si cette structure n'est plus optimale ou efficace. Le concept de dépendance de chemin met donc l'accent sur l'importance du temps et de la séquence des événements dans la détermination des trajectoires institutionnelles et sociales.

Paul Pierson & Theda Skocpol

L'expression "dynamics of self-reinforcing or positive feedback processes in a political system", que l'on pourrait traduire par "dynamiques de processus d'auto-renforcement ou de rétroaction positive dans un système politique", est utilisée par Paul Pierson et Theda Skocpol dans leur article "Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science" publié en 2002.

Dans ce contexte, un processus d'auto-renforcement fait référence à une situation où une fois qu'une institution ou une politique est mise en place, elle tend à se renforcer elle-même par ses effets et à devenir de plus en plus résistante aux changements. Cela peut se produire pour diverses raisons, telles que l'accumulation de ressources, l'apprentissage et l'adaptation des acteurs, ou la création de nouvelles attentes et normes comportementales.

De manière similaire, une rétroaction positive est un processus dans lequel les effets d'une action ou d'une décision augmentent l'ampleur ou la probabilité de futurs événements similaires. Dans un système politique, par exemple, une politique qui favorise un certain groupe peut renforcer le pouvoir de ce groupe et augmenter la probabilité qu'il soutienne des politiques similaires à l'avenir.

Ces concepts sont centraux dans l'approche du néo-institutionnalisme historique de la science politique, qui met l'accent sur le rôle des institutions et des processus historiques dans le façonnement des résultats politiques.

Lock-in effect

Le "Lock-in effect", ou effet de verrouillage en français, est un concept qui découle de l'approche de dépendance de sentier ("Path Dependence") en sciences sociales. Il fait référence à une situation dans laquelle, une fois qu'un certain chemin ou une certaine trajectoire a été empruntée, il devient de plus en plus difficile de revenir en arrière ou de choisir une alternative. Cela est dû aux coûts croissants associés au changement de trajectoire ou à l'abandon de la voie actuelle, comme le coût de l'abandon des investissements précédents, le coût de la formation à de nouvelles pratiques ou technologies, ou le coût de la résistance des acteurs bénéficiant du statu quo. Par exemple, dans le domaine technologique, le concept de lock-in est souvent utilisé pour expliquer pourquoi une technologie particulière devient dominante, même si d'autres technologies peuvent être techniquement supérieures. Une fois qu'une technologie a gagné une certaine part de marché, elle peut bénéficier d'un effet de réseau qui renforce sa position et rend difficile le passage à une technologie concurrente.

Dans le contexte politique ou institutionnel, le lock-in peut faire référence à la façon dont des décisions ou des politiques précédentes rendent difficile le changement d'un certain statu quo, même si ce statu quo est considéré comme sous-optimal. Cela peut être dû à l'accumulation de ressources et de pouvoir par les bénéficiaires de la situation actuelle, à l'émergence de normes et de comportements qui renforcent le statu quo, ou à la résistance des acteurs qui craignent de perdre en cas de changement.

Rebrousser chemin de ce choix, de ce path choisi est aussi très difficile. Cette idée est centrale au concept de dépendance de trajectoire (path dependence) en sciences sociales. Une fois qu'une certaine voie est choisie dans un système social, politique ou économique, il devient de plus en plus difficile de la modifier ou de la changer. Les individus et les organisations s'adaptent à la trajectoire choisie, investissant du temps, de l'argent et des ressources pour s'y conformer. Ils développent des habitudes, des compétences et des attentes qui sont alignées avec cette trajectoire. Ce processus renforce la trajectoire actuelle et rend son changement de plus en plus coûteux et difficile. Les individus et les organisations sont de plus en plus réticents à abandonner la trajectoire actuelle parce qu'ils ont investi tant de ressources pour s'y conformer et parce qu'ils anticipent des coûts élevés en cas de changement. C'est ce qu'on appelle l'effet de verrouillage ou "lock-in effect". De plus, les institutions elles-mêmes peuvent renforcer la trajectoire choisie en mettant en place des règles et des réglementations qui encouragent la conformité et découragent le changement. Cela crée un cercle vicieux qui renforce encore plus la trajectoire actuelle et rend son changement encore plus difficile. C'est pourquoi, dans de nombreux cas, les choix initiaux - même s'ils étaient contingents ou basés sur des informations imparfaites - peuvent avoir des conséquences à long terme et difficilement réversibles pour la trajectoire d'une société, d'une économie ou d'un système politique.

Stickiness

Dans le contexte institutionnaliste historique, le terme "stickiness" se réfère à la manière dont les institutions ont tendance à résister aux changements, même en présence de nouvelles conditions ou de nouveaux défis. Les institutions peuvent être "collantes" ou "persistantes" en ce sens qu'elles ont tendance à perdurer dans le temps, et les structures et pratiques qu'elles mettent en place peuvent avoir un impact durable sur la société et continuer à influencer les développements futurs. Cela ne signifie pas nécessairement que les institutions sont immuables ou incapables d'évoluer. Au contraire, les institutions peuvent et changent souvent avec le temps. Cependant, ce processus de changement peut être lent, complexe et non linéaire, et les institutions peuvent souvent conserver des éléments de leur forme et de leur fonction passées, même lorsqu'elles s'adaptent à de nouvelles conditions. C'est ce qu'on entend par le terme "stickiness".

C'est là une des idées centrales de l'institutionnalisme historique. Les institutions ont une inertie propre qui leur permet de résister au changement, même face à des changements dans les préférences des acteurs ou dans l'équilibre des pouvoirs entre eux. Cela peut se produire pour plusieurs raisons :

• Coûts de transition : Modifier une institution existante ou en créer une nouvelle peut entraîner des coûts importants, à la fois en termes de ressources matérielles et de temps. Ces coûts peuvent dissuader les acteurs de chercher à changer l'institution, même s'ils le souhaiteraient autrement.
• Habitudes et attentes : Les acteurs se sont souvent habitués à une institution existante et ont élaboré leurs stratégies en fonction de celle-ci. Le changement peut perturber ces stratégies et créer de l'incertitude, ce qui peut aussi dissuader les acteurs de chercher à changer l'institution.
• Effets de verrouillage et de path dependency : Une fois qu'une institution est en place, elle peut créer des dynamiques qui rendent son existence plus probable dans le futur. Par exemple, une institution peut créer des intérêts matériels qui encouragent certains acteurs à la défendre, ou elle peut façonner les croyances et les valeurs de telle sorte que les gens la considèrent comme légitime ou naturelle.

C'est pour ces raisons que les institutions peuvent résister au changement, même face à des changements dans les intérêts des acteurs ou dans l'équilibre des pouvoirs.

Le concept de "path dependence" dans l'institutionnalisme historique soutient l'idée que même si les conditions qui ont initialement conduit à l'établissement d'une institution changent, l'institution elle-même peut persister.

Le concept de "path dependence" est crucial dans l'institutionnalisme historique pour expliquer pourquoi les sociétés peuvent suivre des trajectoires historiques stables sur de longues périodes, même en l'absence des conditions originales qui ont conduit à l'établissement de ces trajectoires. Il y a plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles une société peut avoir du mal à changer de trajectoire :

1. Effets de seuil : Une fois qu'une certaine institution ou un certain ensemble de pratiques atteint un certain niveau de prévalence, elle peut devenir "auto-renforçante" ou "auto-stabilisante". Par exemple, une fois qu'une certaine technologie ou une certaine norme sociale devient largement adoptée, elle peut devenir difficile à changer simplement parce que tant de personnes l'utilisent et en dépendent.
2. Hystérésis : Il s'agit du phénomène par lequel l'histoire d'un système a une influence sur son état présent, même si les conditions originales ont changé. Par exemple, les anciens régimes politiques ou économiques peuvent continuer à influencer la culture politique ou économique longtemps après leur disparition.
3. Rendements croissants : Il s'agit du phénomène par lequel plus une institution ou une pratique est utilisée, plus elle devient avantageuse à utiliser. Cela peut créer une "boucle de rétroaction positive" qui renforce et stabilise l'institution ou la pratique.

L'institutionnalisme historique, avec son concept de "path dependence", met en évidence l'inertie inhérente aux institutions politiques et sociales. Les choix faits dans le passé ont une influence déterminante sur les trajectoires futures d'une société. Les institutions existantes créent un cadre structurant pour l'action, qui oriente les comportements individuels et collectifs. Ces structures ont tendance à se perpétuer au fil du temps, même en présence de nouveaux défis ou opportunités. C'est en partie parce que les institutions sont souvent construites pour être durables et résilientes, et en partie parce qu'elles sont intégrées à des systèmes plus larges de normes, de valeurs et de pratiques qui se renforcent mutuellement. De plus, une fois qu'une certaine voie institutionnelle a été empruntée, il peut être très coûteux, difficile ou politiquement inacceptable de changer de cap. Ce "coût de sortie" peut inclure non seulement les coûts financiers, mais aussi les coûts sociaux, tels que la perturbation de relations établies, la perte de légitimité, ou la résistance de ceux qui bénéficient du statu quo. Cela signifie que les sociétés peuvent rencontrer des difficultés considérables pour changer radicalement de trajectoire. C'est une réalité que les politiques publiques et les efforts de réforme doivent prendre en compte.

Un exemple clair de la manière dont les institutions structurent les résultats socioéconomiques est entre la Suède et les États-Unis qui ont des traditions institutionnelles très différentes en ce qui concerne le marché du travail. En Suède, l'institutionnalisation du marché du travail est fortement influencée par le modèle nordique, aussi appelé modèle social-démocrate. Ce modèle se caractérise par un niveau élevé de protection sociale, une forte participation des syndicats, une régulation extensive du marché du travail et une redistribution importante par le biais du système fiscal et des prestations sociales. Ces institutions contribuent à limiter les inégalités et à fournir une certaine sécurité économique aux travailleurs. Aux États-Unis, en revanche, le marché du travail est plus libéral, avec moins de réglementation et un niveau de protection sociale plus faible. Les syndicats ont moins de poids et la redistribution par le biais du système fiscal et des prestations sociales est moins importante. En conséquence, les inégalités sont plus élevées et le risque économique est davantage porté par les individus. Ces différences institutionnelles sont profondément enracinées dans l'histoire et la culture de chaque pays, et elles illustrent bien l'idée de "path dependence" : les choix passés en matière de politique économique et sociale ont créé des trajectoires distinctes qui continuent d'influencer les résultats actuels.

Les institutions ne sont pas simplement transplantables d'un pays à l'autre, car elles sont enracinées dans des contextes culturels, sociaux, économiques et historiques spécifiques. Chaque pays a sa propre "path dependence", qui est le résultat de ses décisions et expériences passées. Ces expériences façonnent les attentes, les normes et les valeurs qui sous-tendent ses institutions.

Les États-Unis et la Suède ont des valeurs et des normes sociales très différentes, ainsi que des histoires politiques et économiques différentes, qui ont conduit à l'adoption de modèles institutionnels très différents. Les citoyens de chaque pays ont des attentes différentes en matière de rôle de l'État, de solidarité sociale, de régulation du marché du travail, etc. Ces attentes sont enracinées dans leur histoire et leur culture, et elles influencent les politiques qui sont politiquement viables et socialement acceptables.

Tenter de transplanter des institutions d'un contexte à l'autre sans tenir compte de ces différences pourrait entraîner des résultats inattendus ou indésirables. Par exemple, la mise en place d'une protection sociale extensive à la suédoise aux États-Unis pourrait se heurter à des résistances politiques et sociales, compte tenu de l'accent traditionnellement mis sur l'autonomie individuelle, la responsabilité personnelle et le libre marché. Pour réduire les inégalités, il est nécessaire de tenir compte des spécificités de chaque pays et de chercher à adapter et à améliorer les institutions existantes de manière à refléter ces spécificités. Cela pourrait impliquer, par exemple, de renforcer la protection des travailleurs, de promouvoir l'éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie, ou de réformer le système fiscal pour le rendre plus progressif. Cependant, il est crucial de comprendre que les changements institutionnels sont souvent un processus lent et complexe, nécessitant un consensus social et politique.

Les moments de création institutionnelle sont souvent des points de basculement critiques dans l'histoire d'un pays ou d'une organisation. Ces moments constituent des choix initiaux qui, une fois effectués, peuvent avoir des effets durables et profonds, orientant le développement futur le long d'un chemin spécifique. Les institutions établies lors de ces moments cruciaux peuvent créer ce que les chercheurs appellent une "dépendance au sentier" - un phénomène par lequel les choix initiaux influencent fortement les options et les possibilités disponibles à l'avenir. Cette dépendance au sentier peut rendre très difficile le changement de cap ou l'adoption de nouvelles institutions ou politiques, même lorsque les circonstances ont changé. C'est pourquoi il est crucial de comprendre ces moments de création institutionnelle et la manière dont ils façonnent les trajectoires futures. Cela peut aider à expliquer pourquoi certains pays ou organisations prennent une direction particulière, pourquoi il est si difficile de changer de direction, et comment les institutions peuvent être conçues ou réformées pour mieux répondre aux défis contemporains.

Critical juncture

Les "critical junctures" (ou moments charnières) dans la théorie institutionnaliste sont ces moments de décision clés où des choix significatifs sont effectués qui déterminent la direction d'une trajectoire institutionnelle. Ces choix initiaux peuvent avoir des effets durables et puissants sur le développement institutionnel. En d'autres termes, une "critical juncture" est une période de changement significatif où les décisions prises ont des conséquences lourdes et durables pour le cours des événements. Ce sont des moments de grande fluidité où des changements institutionnels peuvent être mis en œuvre qui divergent de ce qui existait auparavant. Ces "critical junctures" peuvent être déclenchées par divers facteurs, tels que des crises économiques, des guerres, des révolutions, des changements politiques significatifs ou d'autres événements majeurs. Les décisions prises pendant ces périodes ont souvent un impact sur le long terme, façonnant la direction de la politique, de l'économie et de la société pour les années, voire les décennies à venir.

Les "critical junctures" ou points de basculement sont souvent déclenchés par des crises majeures ou des événements importants qui perturbent l'ordre existant et créent des opportunités pour des changements institutionnels significatifs. Ces crises peuvent inclure des événements comme les guerres, les révolutions, les crises économiques ou politiques, les catastrophes naturelles, etc. Durant ces moments, les structures institutionnelles existantes peuvent être remises en question, modifiées ou même démantelées. En même temps, de nouvelles institutions peuvent être créées pour répondre aux défis posés par la crise. De cette manière, les "critical junctures" peuvent marquer le début de nouvelles trajectoires de développement institutionnel. Il est également important de noter que même si ces moments de crise sont souvent associés à des changements significatifs, l'orientation spécifique de ces changements est souvent déterminée par un certain nombre de facteurs, y compris les intérêts et les valeurs des acteurs clés, la nature de la crise elle-même, et les conditions socio-économiques et politiques existantes.

La crise financière de 2008 a amené beaucoup de chercheurs et de politologues à se demander si elle marquerait une "critical juncture", ou point de basculement, dans l'économie mondiale. Cette crise a révélé de nombreuses failles dans le système financier mondial et a mis en évidence la nécessité de régulations plus rigoureuses et d'une meilleure supervision des marchés financiers. Dans certains cas, on a assisté à des changements significatifs. Par exemple, aux États-Unis, la crise financière a conduit à l'adoption de la loi Dodd-Frank en 2010, qui a apporté d'importantes réformes réglementaires dans le secteur financier. Au niveau international, la crise a également conduit à un renforcement du rôle du G20 comme forum de coopération économique internationale. Cela a inclus des efforts pour améliorer la réglementation financière mondiale et promouvoir une croissance économique plus stable et durable. Cependant, de nombreux chercheurs et commentateurs ont noté que, malgré ces changements, de nombreux aspects fondamentaux du système financier mondial sont restés largement inchangés. Cela peut être dû à la résistance des acteurs économiques et politiques existants, à la complexité du système financier mondial et à l'absence de consensus sur les solutions alternatives. Par conséquent, bien que la crise financière de 2008 ait conduit à certains changements, il reste à voir si elle marque une véritable "critical juncture" dans l'évolution de l'économie mondiale.

Les événements majeurs comme les guerres, les révolutions ou les changements politiques massifs peuvent créer des "critical junctures" ou des moments de basculement qui transforment radicalement les trajectoires historiques et institutionnelles des pays. Par exemple, après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l'Allemagne a connu un réaménagement majeur de son système politique et économique, passant d'un régime totalitaire à une démocratie libérale avec une économie de marché. Cela a eu des effets durables sur le développement de l'Allemagne dans les décennies qui ont suivi. De même, le Printemps arabe, qui a débuté en 2010, a entraîné des changements politiques significatifs dans de nombreux pays du Moyen-Orient et de l'Afrique du Nord. Dans certains pays, comme la Tunisie, cela a conduit à une transition vers une démocratie plus ouverte, tandis que dans d'autres, comme la Syrie ou la Libye, cela a entraîné un conflit et une instabilité prolongés. Ces "critical junctures" sont souvent des périodes de changement intense et d'incertitude, mais elles peuvent aussi offrir des opportunités pour la réforme institutionnelle et le changement social. Cependant, comme le souligne l'approche institutionnaliste historique, les résultats de ces moments formateurs sont fortement influencés par les institutions existantes et les trajectoires historiques, et ils peuvent souvent avoir des conséquences imprévues et durables.

L'institutionnalisme historique conteste les approches qui cherchent à expliquer les phénomènes sociaux et politiques en se fondant sur des relations constantes entre variables indépendantes et dépendantes, souvent mesurées à l'aide de l'analyse de régression. Dans ce type d'approches, on suppose généralement que la relation entre deux variables (par exemple, le niveau d'éducation et le revenu, ou le niveau de démocratie et le développement économique) est constante à travers différents contextes et périodes de temps. Cependant, les institutionnalistes historiques soutiennent que ces approches négligent souvent l'importance du contexte historique et institutionnel dans lequel ces relations se produisent. Ils soutiennent que les relations entre variables peuvent être fortement influencées par des facteurs contextuels, tels que les institutions existantes, les normes culturelles et les trajectoires historiques. Par exemple, le lien entre l'éducation et le revenu peut varier considérablement en fonction du système éducatif, du marché du travail et des politiques sociales d'un pays. De même, le lien entre la démocratie et le développement économique peut être influencé par de nombreux facteurs historiques et institutionnels, tels que l'héritage colonial, le régime politique, les ressources naturelles et les conflits internes. En mettant l'accent sur le rôle du contexte historique et institutionnel, l'institutionnalisme historique cherche à fournir une analyse plus nuancée et plus riche des phénomènes sociaux et politiques.

Les institutionnalistes historiques soutiennent que le contexte institutionnel d'un pays - ses règles, réglementations, normes et structures - peut fortement influencer son parcours historique et ses résultats socio-politiques. Les institutions peuvent définir des incitations, des contraintes et des opportunités pour les acteurs, influençant ainsi leurs comportements et leurs choix. C'est pourquoi les institutionnalistes historiques sont souvent sceptiques quant aux tentatives de généraliser les relations causales entre variables à travers différents contextes institutionnels. Ils soutiennent que ce qui fonctionne dans un contexte institutionnel peut ne pas fonctionner dans un autre. En conséquence, ils préconisent une approche plus contextuelle et historiquement sensibilisée, qui prend en compte les spécificités institutionnelles de chaque pays ou groupe de pays. Cela peut impliquer des études de cas approfondies, des comparaisons historiques et des analyses de la façon dont les institutions et les trajectoires historiques peuvent influencer les résultats sociaux et politiques. Dans cette perspective, l'analyse de la path dependence, des moments charnières (critical junctures), de l'effet de verrouillage (lock-in effect) et de la stickiness des institutions sont des concepts clés pour comprendre les dynamiques de changement et de continuité dans la vie politique et sociale.

Dans un pays avec des institutions du marché du travail fortes et protectrices des travailleurs (comme certains pays d'Europe occidentale), les employeurs pourraient avoir plus de difficultés à augmenter le temps de travail en réponse à la pression de la concurrence internationale. Les syndicats, les conventions collectives et les réglementations du travail pourraient limiter leur capacité à le faire. En revanche, dans un pays avec des institutions du marché du travail plus flexibles et moins protectrices des travailleurs (comme les États-Unis), les employeurs pourraient avoir plus de latitude pour augmenter le temps de travail en réponse à la même pression de la concurrence internationale. Dans ces deux cas, les institutions du marché du travail influencent la façon dont les acteurs économiques locaux répondent à la mondialisation. Ce n'est pas simplement une question de coûts économiques et de compétitivité, mais aussi de normes, de réglementations et de structures institutionnelles.

Les syndicats, en tant qu'institutions, peuvent jouer un rôle clé dans la détermination de l'impact de la mondialisation sur les conditions de travail. Dans les pays où les syndicats sont forts et ont une grande influence, ils peuvent être en mesure de résister à l'augmentation de la pression pour des heures de travail plus longues, même face à une concurrence internationale accrue. Ils peuvent négocier de meilleures conditions pour les travailleurs, y compris des limites sur le temps de travail. À l'inverse, dans les pays où les syndicats sont faibles ou ont une influence limitée, ils peuvent être moins en mesure de résister à ces pressions. Par conséquent, les travailleurs dans ces pays peuvent être plus susceptibles de voir une augmentation de leurs heures de travail à mesure que la mondialisation économique s'intensifie. Cela démontre l'importance de l'institutionnalisme historique, qui se concentre sur l'analyse des institutions comme les syndicats, et comment elles influencent les réponses à des défis tels que la mondialisation économique.

Les relations économiques, telles que celle entre les investissements directs étrangers (IDE) et le temps de travail, ne sont pas uniformes à travers le temps et l'espace. Elles sont fortement influencées par le contexte institutionnel spécifique d'un pays à un moment donné. Par exemple, un pays avec un système de relations de travail fortement régulé et des syndicats puissants pourrait être en mesure de résister à une augmentation des heures de travail en dépit d'une augmentation des IDE. Dans ce contexte, les institutions agissent comme un modérateur dans la relation entre les IDE et le temps de travail. D'un autre côté, dans un pays avec des syndicats faibles et un marché du travail moins régulé, une augmentation des IDE pourrait entraîner une augmentation du temps de travail. Les institutions (ou leur absence) dans ce contexte pourraient ne pas offrir le même niveau de protection aux travailleurs. C'est une illustration parfaite de la manière dont le contexte institutionnel spécifique d'un pays peut influencer les résultats économiques et sociaux.

Critique du principe explicatif de constant causes

La critique de l'approche de "causes constantes" par les institutionnalistes historiques est liée à la prise en compte du contexte. La pensée institutionnaliste historique fait valoir que les explications générales qui s'appliquent uniformément à tous les contextes peuvent manquer des nuances importantes. Pour l'institutionnalisme historique, le contexte compte beaucoup. Les institutions sont considérées comme façonnées par l'histoire, et à leur tour, elles façonnent les comportements individuels et collectifs et les trajectoires de développement au sein d'un pays ou d'une région. Par conséquent, le contexte dans lequel une institution évolue est fondamental pour comprendre son rôle et son impact. Par exemple, dans le domaine de la politique publique, une politique qui fonctionne bien dans un pays peut ne pas fonctionner de la même manière dans un autre pays, simplement à cause des différences dans le contexte institutionnel. Cela ne signifie pas que la recherche de "causes constantes" n'a pas de valeur. Au contraire, cette recherche peut nous aider à identifier des tendances générales et à développer des théories. Mais les institutionnalistes historiques nous rappellent que nous devons également être attentifs au contexte spécifique et à la manière dont celui-ci peut influencer les résultats.

Pour Coser, la science social, "on the basis of the substantive enlightenment… it is able to supply about the social structures in which we are enmeshed and which largely condition the course of our lives”. Closer souligne ici l'importance de la sociologie et des sciences sociales plus généralement en tant qu'outils pour nous aider à comprendre les structures sociales qui façonnent notre vie. En d'autres termes, la valeur des sciences sociales réside dans leur capacité à éclairer les systèmes et structures dans lesquels nous vivons et qui influencent grandement notre vie quotidienne.

Selon cette perspective, les sciences sociales devraient nous aider à comprendre les institutions, les relations, les dynamiques de pouvoir, les idéologies, les normes sociales, et d'autres éléments clés de nos sociétés qui influencent notre comportement, nos opportunités et nos expériences de vie. La sociologie, par exemple, peut nous aider à comprendre pourquoi certaines personnes ou certains groupes ont plus de pouvoir que d'autres, comment les structures sociales contribuent à la reproduction de l'inégalité, ou comment les normes sociales influencent nos comportements. En fin de compte, Coser suggère que la mesure de la réussite des sciences sociales devrait être l'éclairage substantiel qu'elles apportent à notre compréhension du monde social. Cela implique une attention constante à l'analyse de nos structures sociales et à la manière dont elles façonnent nos vies.

L'institutionnalisme historique, qui s'intéresse à la manière dont les institutions et leurs histoires façonnent les trajectoires politiques et économiques, utilise des concepts comme l'"institutional layering" (superposition institutionnelle) et l'"institutional conversion" (conversion institutionnelle) pour expliquer comment les institutions changent et se transforment au fil du temps.

• Institutional Layering: Ce terme est utilisé pour décrire le processus par lequel de nouvelles institutions ou règles sont ajoutées aux institutions existantes sans nécessairement éliminer ou remplacer les anciennes. C'est un processus de changement institutionnel plus graduel et cumulatif. Par exemple, dans un système de santé, l'introduction d'un nouveau système d'assurance maladie publique ne supprime pas nécessairement les prestataires de soins de santé privés existants, mais vient s'ajouter à eux, créant ainsi une couche supplémentaire d'institutions.
• Institutional Conversion: Ce concept fait référence à un processus de changement plus radical dans lequel une institution existante est transformée en une institution de nature très différente. Cela peut se produire lorsque les acteurs institutionnels réinterprètent ou réaffectent les ressources, les rôles ou les règles d'une institution pour répondre à de nouvelles exigences ou opportunités. Par exemple, une organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) initialement créée pour fournir une aide d'urgence pourrait être "convertie" en une institution axée sur le développement à long terme.

Ces deux concepts mettent en lumière les différentes façons dont les institutions peuvent évoluer et changer en réponse à de nouvelles exigences, opportunités ou défis. Ils reconnaissent que le changement institutionnel n'est pas toujours un processus de remplacement complet d'une institution par une autre, mais peut souvent être un processus plus graduel et complexe d'adaptation et de transformation.

L'Institutionnalisme Historique fait la distinction entre le changement institutionnel et le rôle des institutions comme variable indépendante dans l'explication des résultats politiques et sociaux. Dans cette approche, les institutions ne sont pas seulement des variables indépendantes qui influencent les comportements et les résultats, mais aussi des variables dépendantes qui sont elles-mêmes influencées par un certain nombre de facteurs sociaux, politiques et économiques. Cela signifie que l'Institutionnalisme Historique s'intéresse non seulement à la manière dont les institutions façonnent les comportements et les résultats, mais aussi à la manière dont les institutions elles-mêmes changent et évoluent au fil du temps.

Par exemple, on peut se demander comment une institution spécifique, comme un système de sécurité sociale, a évolué au fil du temps en réponse à des changements dans l'économie ou la société. Ce serait considérer l'institution comme une variable dépendante. D'un autre côté, on pourrait se demander comment ce même système de sécurité sociale a influencé les comportements des individus ou les résultats en matière de santé et de bien-être. Dans ce cas, l'institution serait considérée comme une variable indépendante.

Quant à l'institutional layering (superposition institutionnelle) et l'institutional conversion (conversion institutionnelle), ces concepts servent à expliquer les différentes façons dont les institutions peuvent évoluer et changer. L'institutional layering fait référence à l'ajout de nouvelles institutions ou règles aux institutions existantes, tandis que l'institutional conversion se réfère à la transformation d'une institution existante en quelque chose de radicalement différent. Ces deux concepts reconnaissent donc la possibilité et la réalité du changement institutionnel.

L'institutionnalisme historique reconnaît que les institutions ne sont pas statiques mais peuvent évoluer et changer au fil du temps, souvent de manière plus graduelle que radicale.

Dans l'institutional layering, de nouvelles initiatives ou procédures sont ajoutées à l'institution existante sans la remplacer complètement. Cela peut être vu comme une évolution plutôt qu'une révolution, où les changements se font graduellement et en parallèle avec les structures existantes. Dans l'institutional conversion, les institutions existantes sont réorientées vers de nouvelles fonctions ou objectifs. Les structures institutionnelles demeurent, mais leurs fonctions changent, parfois de manière significative. En ce qui concerne la théorie des groupes d'intérêts, elle est également pertinente pour l'institutionnalisme historique. Cette théorie met en évidence le rôle des conflits entre différents groupes sociaux et économiques dans la dynamique politique. Selon cette théorie, les groupes d'intérêts rivalisent pour obtenir des ressources limitées, et les institutions politiques sont souvent le lieu de ces luttes.

L'institutionnalisme historique, toutefois, ne se contente pas de considérer ces conflits, mais s'interroge également sur la manière dont ils sont structurés et façonnés par les institutions politiques existantes. De plus, il s'intéresse à la manière dont ces structures institutionnelles varient d'un pays à l'autre et dans le temps. Cela reflète son attention à la fois pour le rôle des institutions en tant que facteurs déterminants des comportements politiques et pour la manière dont elles sont elles-mêmes façonnées et transformées.

Annexes

• Path Dependence in Historical Sociology - James Mahoney; Theory and Society , Vol. 29, No. 4 (Aug., 2000) , pp. 507-548 - Published by: Springer; Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108585
• Rothstein, Bo. The Social Democratic State: The Swedish Model and the Beaureaucratic Problem of Social Reform. Pittsburgh, PA: U of Pittsburgh, 1995