Two theoretical schools—rationalist and constructivist approaches—dominate the literature on policy and institutional change. They tend to focus the debate on the ontological understanding of human behavior and hence the logic behind change. The authors note that another dimension of change—namely, its scope—is treated unsatisfactorily in the literature due to a neglect of the level of abstraction used as a point of departure by different studies. Hence, the literature is littered with “false debates” couched in the language of ontological disagreement. A regrouping of the literature into structure- and agency-based approaches will help to take for more systematic account of the levels of abstraction problem and therefore the varying measuring rods applied to assess the scope of change. The authors' analytical focus runs orthogonal to the question of ontology and complements the dominant debate by allowing for a separation of different analytical dimensions in the study of political change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
2.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 394, 116-131.
3.
Barnett, M. (1999). Culture, strategy and foreign policy: Israel's road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 5-36.
4.
Börzel, T. (1999, March 26-31). Why there is no southern problem: On environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. Paper prepared for the European Consortium for Political Research, Joint Session of Workshops, Workshop “Why do Social Actors Comply? Comparing European and International Norms,”Mannheim, Germany.
5.
Caporaso, J. , Cowles, M., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (in press). Europeanization and domestic change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
Checkel, J. T. (1998, March 23-28). Social construction, institutional analysis and the study of European integration. Paper presented at the Workshop on Institutional Analysis of European Integration of the European Consortium for Political Research, Warwick, England.
7.
Clayton, R. , & Pontusson, J. (1998). Welfare state retrenchment revisited: Entitlement cuts, public sector restructuring, and inegalitarian trends in advanced capitalist societies. World Politics, 1, 67-98.
8.
Cram, L. (1997). Policy-making in the EU: Conceptual lenses and the integration process. London: Routledge.
9.
DiMaggio, P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutionalised isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Duina, F. (1997). Explaining legal implementation in the European Union. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25, 155-179.
12.
Dyson, K. (1980). The state tradition in Western Europe: A study of an idea and institution. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
13.
Elman, A. (1998). The EU and women: Virtual equality. In P.-H. Laurent & M. Maresceau (Eds.), The state of the European Union. Vol. 4: Deepening and widening (pp. 225-239). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
14.
Eriksen, E. O. , & Fossum, J. (2000). The European Union and post-national integration. In E. O. Eriksen & J. Fossum (Eds.), Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation?London: Routledge.
15.
Falkner, G. (1998, October 29-31). Zwischen Politikverflechtungsfalle und Entscheidungslücke? Die Reform der `sozialen Dimension' der europäischen Integration [Between decision trap and decision gap? The reform of the social dimension in European integration]. Paper presented at the conference of the Deutsche Vereinigung für politische Wissenschaft “Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die EU? Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem,”Munich, Germany.
16.
Finnemore, M. , & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 4, 887-917.
17.
Hall, P. A. , & Taylor, R.C.R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Discussion Paper 96/6, Cologne, Germany.
18.
Hoskyns, C. (1996). Integrating gender: Women, law and politics in the European Union. London: Verso.
19.
Immergut, E. M. (1992). Health politics: interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Joerges, C. , & Neyer, J. (1997). Transforming strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European comitology in the foodstuffs sector. Journal of European Public Policy, 4, 609-625.
21.
Katzenstein, P. , Keohane, R., & Krasner, S. (1998). International organization and the study of world politics. International Organization, 4, 645-685.
22.
Kerwer, D. (in press). Going through the motions: The modest European impact on Italian transport policy. In A. Héritier, A. Douillet, D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, & M. Teutsch (Eds.), Differential Europe: New opportunities and constraints for national policy-making. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
23.
Knill, C. (in press). Reforming transport policy in the United Kingdom: Concurrence with Europe but separate developments. In A. Héritier, A. Douillet, D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, & M. Teutsch (Eds.), Differential Europe: New opportunities and constraints for national policy-making. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
24.
Knill, C. (2001). The Europeanisation of national administrations: Patterns of institutional change and persistence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming in September 2001.
25.
Knill, C. , & Lehmkuhl, D. (2000). An alternative route of European integration: The community's railways policy. West European Politics, 1, 65-88.
26.
Knill, C. , & Lenschow, A. (1998). Compliance with Europe: The implementation of EU environmental policy and administrative traditions in Britain and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 4, 597-616.
27.
Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty: An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 1, 66-94.
28.
Legro, J. (1996). Culture and preferences in the international cooperation two-step. American Political Science Review, 1, 118-137.
29.
Lehmkuhl, D. (in press). From regulation to stimulation: the reform of Dutch transport policy. In A. Héritier, A. Douillet, D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, & M. Teutsch (Eds.), Differential Europe: New opportunities and constraints for national policy-making. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
30.
March, J. G. , & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.
31.
Martin, H.-P. , & Schumann, H. (1996). Die Globalisierungsfalle: Der Angriff auf Demokratie und Wohlstand [The globalization trap: The attack on democracy and welfare]. Reinbeck, LA: Rowohlt.
32.
Mayntz, R. , & Scharpf, F. W. (1995). Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus [The approach of an actor-centered institutionalism]. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung [Societal self-regulation and political steering] (pp. 39-72). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.
33.
Mazey, S. (1998). The European Union and women's rights: From the Europeanization of national agendas to the nationalization of the European agenda?Journal of European Public Policy, 1, 131-152.
34.
Moe, T. M. (1990). Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6, 213-253.
35.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Ostner, I. , & Lewis, J. (1995). Gender and the evolution of European social policies. In S. Leibfried & P. Pierson (Eds.), European social policy: Between fragmentation and integration (pp. 159-193). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37.
Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 1, 143-179.
38.
Rhodes, M. (1995). “Subversive liberalism”: Market integration, globalization and the European welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy, 3, 384-406.
39.
Risse, T. (2000). “Let's argue”: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 1, 1-39.
40.
Ross, G. (1994). On half-full glasses, Europe and the Left: Comments on Wolfgang Streeck's “European social policy after Maastricht.”Economic and Industrial Democracy, 15, 486-496.
41.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy, 1, 18-36.
42.
Schneider, V. (1998, June). Europeanization and the redimensionalization of the public sector: Telecommunications in Germany, France and Italy. Paper presented at the third project workshop “Europeanization and Domestic Political Change.”Florence, Italy: European University Institute.
43.
Schoppa, L. (1999). The social context in coercive international bargaining. International Organization, 2, 307-342.
44.
Schwartz, H. (1994). Small states in big trouble: State reorganization in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden in the 1980s. World Politics, 4, 527-555.
45.
Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Studying institutions: Some lessons from the rational choice approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 131-147.
46.
Shepsle, K. A. , & Weingast, B. R. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 1, 85-104.
47.
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
Steinmo, S. (1993). Taxation and democracy: Swedish, British and American approaches to financing the modern state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
Streeck, W. (1995). Neo-voluntarism: A new European social policy regime?European Law Journal, 1, 31-59.
50.
Taylor, P. (1983). The limits of European integration. London: Croom Helm.
51.
Teutsch, M. (in press). Regulatory reform in the German transport sector: How to overcome multiple veto points. In A. Héritier, A. Douillet, D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl & M. Teutsch (Eds.), Differential Europe: New opportunities and constraints for national policy-making. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
52.
Thelen, K. , & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In K. Thelen, S. Steinmo, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Vogel, S. K. (1997). International games with national rules: How regulation shapes competition in “global” markets. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 169-193.
54.
Zahariadis, N. (1996). Selling British rail: An idea whose time has come?Comparative Political Studies, 4, 400-422.
