I’m swinging as far as possible from social movements in this post, but I just re-read
Dan Nexon’s article responding to Orfeo Fiortes' IO review essay on historical
institutionalism (HI) in international relations (IR). Fiortes and Nexon adopt
two different approaches.
Fiortes: Microfoundations and preference formation. The sunk costs, increasing returns, and framing effects generated by institutions shape actors’ preferences.
Nexon: Dynamic processes embedded in context. Nexon sees much more variation in institutional processes. HI “develops a toolkit for grappling with the dynamic nature of causal processes and their embeddednness within specific socio-historical contexts.” Nexon emphasizes the “contingent nature of change processes.”
Both approaches highlight the importance of sequencing,
timing, and path dependency. But Fiortes’ treatment of these mechanisms don’t
differ that greatly from rational institutionalism. Preferences still dictate
choices leading to outcomes. Nexon, alternatively moves from microfoundations
to middle-range-theory where he believes HI provides the most promise and
points to the “variable nature of change processes” [emphasis mine]. Network
structures of institutions, relational mechanisms, practice and habitus, norm
diffusion are also processes which may take on characteristics of HI. Nexon
finds the emphasis on a “specific decision-theoretic framework to institutional
choice” problematic because it limits what HI has to offer about change and
transformation in IR. What we wind up with are “static models offering
invariant explanations across time and space.”
My own research on the evolution of East Asia’s regional
architecture closely resembles the Fiortes version of HI, but my understanding
of the social world is much more in line with Nexon (note to self: revisit APSA
paper through Nexon’s framework). There
are affinities between constructivism, HI, and the connection between
institutions, ideas and policy preferences which may link the Fiortes with the
Nexon view.
One possible critique of Nexon’s approach though is that it dilutes
the theoretical precision of HI. It becomes unclear exactly what HI is or does if
we take the middle-range theory approach. I suspect Nexon sees HI as a tent
which encompasses a wide variety or mechanisms and processes but some may still
appreciate the narrower view of HI.
