Over the past decade, historical institutionalism has emerged as one of the major research pillars of contemporary political science. However, most historical institutionalists seem to be unaware of the paradigmatic implications of this approach for political studies. The theoretical underpinnings of historical institutionalism, namely, the ideas of path dependence and the economics of increasing returns, are based on a new science called complexity science. The worldview of complexity science is largely inconsistent with the scientific foundation of current mainstream political science, namely, Newtonianism. The emergence of historical institutionalist analyses in political studies thus means serious paradigmatic challenges for the discipline.
Almond, Gabriel A. (1996). “Political Science: The History of the Discipline,” in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dester Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
2.
Arthur, W. Brian (1988). “Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics,” in Philip W. Anderson , Kenneth J. Arrow and David Pines (eds), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .
3.
Beyer, Jurgen (2005). “Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! Wider den impliziten Konservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts” (Not All Path Dependence is Alike: A Critique of the “Implicit Conservatism” of a Common Concept), Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34(1): 5-21.
4.
Bhaskar, Roy (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books .
5.
Bhaskar, Roy (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism. Brighton: Harvester Press .
6.
Boron, Atilio A. (1999). “A Social Theory for the 21st Century?”Current Sociology47(4): 47-64 .
7.
Brady, Henry E. (2004). “Introduction,”Perspective on Politics2(2): 295-300 .
8.
Brown, Thad A. (1996). “Nonlinear Politics,” in L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliot (eds), Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundation and Applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press .
9.
Buckley, Michael J. (1988). “The Newtonian Settlement and the Origins of Atheism,” in Robert J. Russell , William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (eds), Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. Vatican: Vatican Observatory .
10.
Burnham, P. , Gilland, K. , Grant, W. and Layton-Henry, Z. (2004). Research Methods in Politics. New York: Palgrave .
11.
Byrne, David (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. London: Routledge .
12.
Capra, Fritjof (1982). The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. London: Fontana .
13.
Capra, Fritjof (1991). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, 3rd edn.Boston, MA: Shambhala .
14.
Chalmers, Alan F. (1999). What Is This Thing Called Science?3rd edn.Indianapolis: Hackett .
15.
Clarke, J.J. (2000). The Tao of the West: Western Transformations of Taoist Thought. London: Routledge .
16.
Cohen, I. Bernard (1980). The Newtonian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
17.
Cohen, I. Bernard (1985). Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press .
18.
Cohen, I. Bernard (1994). Interactions: Some Contacts Between the Natural Sciences and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
19.
Collini, S. , Winch, D. and Burrow, J. (1983). That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
20.
Cruickshank, Justin (2004). “A Tale of Two Ontologies: An Immanent Critique of Critical Realism,”Sociological Review52(4): 567-585 .
21.
Cushing, James T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation Between Philosophy and Scientifi c Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
22.
Deane, Phyllis (1989). The State and the Economic System: An Introduction to the History of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
23.
Delanty, Gerard (2005). Social Science: Philosophical and Methodological Foundations. Maidenhead: Open University Press .
24.
Dobbs, BettyJo Teeter and Jacob, Margaret C. (1995). Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press .
25.
Dryzek, John S. and Schlosberg, David (1995). “Disciplining Darwin: Biology in the History of Political Science,” in James Farr , John S. Dryzek and Stephen T. Leonard (eds), Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
26.
Easton, David (1997). “The Future of the Postbehavioral Phase in Political Science,” in Kristen Renwick Monroe (ed.), Contemporary Empirical Political Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press .
27.
Edmonds, Bruce (1999). “What is Complexity? The Philosophy of Complexity per se with Application to some Examples in Evolution,” in Francis Heylighen , Johan Bollen and Alexander Riegler (eds), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers .
28.
Farr, James (1995). “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science,” in James Farr , John S. Dryzek and Stephen T. Leonard (eds), Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
29.
Fleetwood, Steve , ed. (1999). Critical Realism in Economics: Development and Debate. New York: Routledge .
30.
Flyvberg, Bent (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Enquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
31.
Freeman, Donald M. (1991). “The Making of a Discipline,” in William Crotty (ed.), Political Science: Looking into the Future, Volume One: The Theory and Practice of Political Science. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press .
32.
Geddes, Barbara (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press .
33.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking Penguin .
34.
Goldberg, Arthur S. (1963). “Political Science as Science,” in Nelson W. Polsby , Robert A. Dentler and Paul A. Smith (eds), Politics and Social Life. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin .
35.
Goldstone, Jack A. (1998). “Initial Conditions, General Laws, Path Dependence, and Explanation in Historical Sociology,”American Journal of Sociology104(3): 829-845 .
36.
Goodin, Robert E. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (1996). “Political Science: The Discipline,” in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
37.
Granato, Jim and Scioli, Frank (2004). “Puzzles, Proverbs, and Omega Matrices: The Scientifi c and Social Signifi cance of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM),”Perspective on Politics2(2): 313-323 .
38.
Green, Donald P. and Shapiro, Ian (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
39.
Greif, Avner and Laitin, David D. (2004). “A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change,”American Political Science Review98(4): 633-652 .
40.
Gulbenkian Commission (1996). Open the Social Sciences, Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
41.
Gunnell, John G. (2004). “The Real Revolution in Political Science,”PS: Political Science and Politics37(1): 47-50 .
42.
Gunnell, John G. (2005). “Political Science on the Cusp: Recovering a Discipline's Past,”American Political Science Review99(4): 597-609 .
43.
Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C.R. (1996). “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,”Political Studies44: 936-957 .
44.
Harris, Errol (1990). “Ethical Implications of Newtonian Science,” in Phillip Bricker and R.I.G. Hughes (eds), Philosophical Perspectives on Newtonian Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
45.
Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam .
46.
Heal, Geoffrey (1999). “Introduction,” in Geoffrey Heal (ed.), The Economics of Increasing Returns. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar .
47.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2002). “Darwinism in Economics: From Analogy to Ontology,”Journal of Evolutionary Economics12(3): 259-281 .
48.
Hoffmann, Matthew J. and Riley, John, Jr (2002). “The Science of Political Science: Linearity or Complexity in Designing Social Inquiry,”New Political Science24(2): 303-320 .
49.
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1993). Restructuring Scientifi c Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science, trans. Alexander T. Levine . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
50.
Immergut, Ellen M. (1998). “The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism,”Politics and Society26(1): 5-34 .
51.
Johnson, David B. (1991). Public Choice: An Introduction to the New Political Economy. Mountain View, CA: Mayfi eld .
52.
Kay, Adrian (2005). “A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies,”Public Administration83(3): 553-571 .
53.
King, Ian T. (2000). Social Science and Complexity: The Scientifi c Foundations. Huntington, WV: Nova Science .
54.
Kramer, Gerald H. (1986). “Political Science as Science,” in Herbert F. Weisberg (ed.), Political Science: The Science of Politics. New York: Agathon Press .
55.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
56.
Laver, Michael and Schofi eld, Norman (1990). Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
57.
Lawson, Tony (1997). Economics and Reality. London: Routledge .
58.
Lecours, Andre (2005). “New Institutionalism: Issues and Questions,” in Andre Lecours (ed.), New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press .
59.
Lewin, Roger (1992). Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York: Macmillan .
60.
Lorenz, Edward N. (1993). The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press .
61.
Lowndes, Vivien (2002). “Institutionalism,” in David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd edn.New York: Palgrave .
62.
March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P. (1984). “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,”American Political Science Review78(3): 734-749 .
63.
Marsh, David and Furlong, Paul (2002). “A Skin, Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science,” in David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2nd edn.New York: Palgrave .
64.
Marsh, David and Savigny, Heather (2004). “Political Science as a Broad Church: The Search for a Pluralist Discipline,”Politics24(3): 155-168 .
65.
Miller, Gary J. (1997). “The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Political Science,”Journal of Economic Literature35(3): 1173-1204 .
66.
Montuschi, Eleonora (2003). The Objects of Social Science. London: Continuum .
67.
Morcol, Goktug (2002). A New Mind for Policy Analysis: Towards a Post-Newtonian Postpositivist Epistemology and Methodology. Westport, CT: Praeger .
68.
North, Douglas C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
69.
Ozel, Huseyin (2003). “Closing Open Systems: Two Examples for the ‘Double Hermeneutic' in Economics,”METU Studies in Development30(2): 223-248 .
70.
Peters, B. Guy (1999). Institutional Theory in Political Science: The “New Institutionalism.”London: Pinter .
71.
Pierson, Paul (2000). “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,”American Political Science Review94(2): 251-267 .
72.
Pierson, Paul (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
73.
Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda (2002). “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds), Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: Norton .
74.
Prigogine, Ilya and Stengers, Isabelle (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Boulder, CO: Shambhala .
75.
Rescher, Nicholas (1998). Complexity: A Philosophical Overview. London: Transaction .
76.
Rodee, C.C. , Anderson, T.J. , Christol, C.Q. and Greene, T.H. (1983). Introduction to Political Science, 4th edn.New York: McGraw-Hill .
77.
Rothstein, Bo (1996). “Political Institutions: An Overview,” in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
78.
Rycroft, Robert W. and Kash, Don E. (1999). The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century. London: Pinter .
79.
Saatchi, Maurice (2001). The Science of Politics. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson .
80.
Smith, Rogers M. (2004). “Identities, Interests, and the Future of Political Science,”Perspective on Politics2(2): 301-312 .
81.
Sproule-Jones, Mark (1984). “Methodological Individualism: Challenge and Response,”American Behavioral Scientist28(2): 167-183 .
82.
Thelen, Kathleen (1999). “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,”Annual Review of Political Science2: 369-404 .
83.
Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven (1992). “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo (eds), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
84.
Toffl er, Alvin (1984). “Science and Change,” in Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (eds), Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Boulder, CO: Shambhala .
85.
Turner, Frederick (1997). “Forward: Chaos and Social Science,” in Raymond A. Eve , Sara Horsfall and Mary E. Lee (eds), Chaos, Complexity, and Sociology: Myths, Models, and Theories. London: Sage .
86.
Von Dietze, Erich (2001). Paradigms Explained: Rethinking Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Westport, CT: Praeger .
87.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster .
88.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1998). “Uncertainty and Creativity,”American Behavioral Scientist42(3): 320-322 .
89.
Williams, Malcolm (2000). Science and Social Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge .
90.
Winch, Peter (1990). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, 2nd edn.London: Routledge .
