Institutionalist Approaches in the Social Sciences: Typology, Dialogue, and Future Challenges
A multitude of institutionalist approaches are flourishing in the social sciences. Many attempts have been made to survey the field, but most stay within the boundaries of each discipline. Only a few contributions cover trends in the social sciences in general (Hall and Taylor 1996; Scott 1996; Campbell 1997). A recent article by P. J. DiMaggio (1998) is an interesting attempt to survey the field of (new) institutionalisms in the social sciences and to outline an agenda for future cooperation among institutionalist approaches. DiMaggio distinguishes three new institutionalisms: rational-action neoinstitutionalism (RAN), social-constructivist neoinstitutionalism (SCN), and mediated-conflict neoinstitutionalism (MCN). The typology transcends the disciplinary boundaries although the three institutionalisms are seen as originating from economics, sociology, and political science, respectively. Rational-action neoinstitutionalism emphasizes the way in which individual rational action is channeled by the "rules of the game," including laws, inherited organizational forms, and norms. Actors are seen as stable and exogenous. All kinds of institutions are studied within this framework, but most of the focus is on economic rules or formal political institutions. Institutional change is conceived as an effect of strategic action of individuals or of (invisible or visible) selection mechanisms. Social-constructivist neoinstitutionalism argues that all elements of rational-action models-actors, interests, and preferences-are "socially constructed" and therefore endogenous. Research is focused on informal institutions such as schemata, roles, and scripts, or-in general-all that is taken for granted. Institutional change is