aVect the behavior of individuals. As OVe states in theEncyclopedia of Democratic
Thought, edited by P. B. Barry and J. Foweraker, in a rubric entitled, not institu-
tions, but ‘‘institutional design:’’ ‘‘The rules and behavioural routines that make up
the institutions are not just contractually agreed upon between the actual partici-
pants, but recognised, validated and expected by third parties and observers. Some
of the more important institutions come with elaborate normative theories, ‘char-
ters’, ‘animating ideas’ ’’ ( 2001 , 363 ). Social analysis has to be based both on the
choice of individuals and on what might be regarded as the ‘‘pressure’’ of the
groups to which these individuals belong. Hence the emphasis of W. R. Scott ( 1995 )
on both organizations and procedures.
The case of politics is diVerent. Politics is a process of decision-making—and in
that it resembles economics—but a process of decision-making taking place not
between individuals but in communities (in ‘‘systems’’) and applicable to those who
belong to these communities, whether they participated or not in the decisions or
indeed even agreed to them. This is why, as Easton pointed out inThe Political
System, politics has to be an ‘‘authoritative’’ process of decision-making ( 1953 , 135 –
41 ). Two key consequences follow. First, choice in politics is rarely individual, except
if someone leaves the community to which he or she belongs, a move which is easily
doable in the case of the membership of an association (‘‘exit’’), but is appreciably
more diYcult, in practice, with respect to the state. Second, much of politics
concerns people not involved in the decisions taken. This is not equally the case in
(conventional) economics or even in much of what sociologists are concerned with.
The point is critical: It leads to the distinction between the way economists and
sociologists, on the one hand, and political scientists, on the other, understand the
meaning of institutions. Strangely enough, Rothstein does not point out that
diVerence, although he distinguishes between the approaches of economists and
sociologists (in Goodin and Klingemann 1996 , 144 – 9 ).
2 Institutions and Politics: A Case of
Organizations and of Procedures, but
within Organizations
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
One can therefore see why in politics the emphasis has been almost automatically
placed on organizations rather than on procedures or rules when the question of
the deWnition of institutions has arisen. Rules count: They are part of the institu-
tional process; but rules and procedures become applicable, in politics, through
organizations only, as they have to be applicable to large numbers who have not
participated (because they do not have the right to do so, in most cases) in the
722 jean blondel