The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’
Abstract
All three of the traditionally recognized new institutionalisms – rational choice, historical, and sociological – have increasingly sought to ‘endogenize’ change, which has often meant a turn to ideas and discourse. This article shows that the approaches of scholars coming out of each of these three institutionalist traditions who take ideas and discourse seriously can best be classified as part of a fourth ‘new institutionalism’ – discursive institutionalism (DI) – which is concerned with both the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes of discourse in institutional context. It argues that this newest of the ‘new institutionalisms’ has the greatest potential for providing insights into the dynamics of institutional change by explaining the actual preferences, strategies, and normative orientations of actors. The article identifies the wide range of approaches that fit this analytic framework, illustrating the ways in which scholars of DI have gone beyond the limits of the traditional institutionalisms on questions of interests and uncertainty, critical junctures and incremental change, norms and culture. It defines institutions dynamically – in contrast to the older neo-institutionalisms’ more static external rule-following structures of incentives, path-dependencies, and cultural framing – as structures and constructs of meaning internal to agents whose ‘background ideational abilities’ enable them to create (and maintain) institutions while their ‘foreground discursive abilities’ enable them to communicate critically about them, to change (or maintain) them. But the article also points to areas for improvement in DI, including the theoretical analysis of processes of ideational change, the use of the older neo-institutionalisms for background information, and the incorporation of the power of interests and position into accounts of the power of ideas and discourse.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
North, D. C. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808678 · Cited by 32,691
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Pierson, P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586011 · Cited by 8,094 · cited 2×
“…its historical determinism where it focuses on critical junctures (e.g., Collier and Collier, 1991) leading to pathdependence (Mahoney, 2000; Pierson, 2000), along with its inability to explain institutional change endogenously, even if more recent HI scholars have succeeded in describing…”
BackgroundThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain
Hall, P. A. (1993) · Comparative Politics · doi:10.2307/422246 · Cited by 7,369
Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) · Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x · Cited by 6,796
Path dependence in historical sociology
Mahoney, J. (2000) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1023/a:1007113830879 · Cited by 3,469
(2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803475 · Cited by 2,987
Why we need a new theory of government
Levi, M. (2006) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592706060038 · Cited by 149
Cited by
New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?
Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/0192512110388788 · Cited by 738
Cherp, A., Vinichenko, V., Jewell, J., Brutschin, E., & Sovacool, B. (2018) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.015 · Cited by 601
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2018) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501763.2017.1310281 · Cited by 513
Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation
Schmidt, V. A. (2011) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2011.576520 · Cited by 317
Self-citationThe Baltic Republics and the Crisis of 2008–2011
Kattel, R., & Raudla, R. (2013) · Europe-Asia Studies · doi:10.1080/09668136.2013.779456 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, V. A.
- Venue
- European Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-02-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-25
- ISSN
- 1755-7739 (ISSN-L)
- 1755-7747
- OpenAlex
- W2157863915
- Cited by
- 1,593
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 367.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s175577390999021x
- The paper
- Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175577390999021x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.