Introduction

Abstract

In the earlier days of its development, two important spokesmen for what is known as the new institutional approach to the study of social and political phenomena said that this approach ‘is far from coherent or consistent; it is not completely legitimate; but neither can it be entirely ignored’ (March and Olsen 1984, p. 734). These words still seem to be highly relevant. New institutionalism cannot be ignored. It purports to reshape our thinking about topics as divergent as local governments, legislative processes, public law, the origins of the state, international co-operation, bureaucratic policy making, etc. The approach has influenced the study of law, the study of politics and public administration, organisation theory, economics and sociology. Furthermore, the stream of new institutional publications reveals that the number of scholars adopting this approach is still increasing. However, although new institutionalism cannot be ignored, speaking of the new institutional approach would suggest a greater consensus among its followers than can in fact be found. There is not only a wide diversity of opinions about the essentials of one of the central notions (if not the central notion) of the paradigm, namely that of an institution, but also with respect to the appropriate way of conducting institutional analyses (DiMaggio and Powell 1991).