4 The Role of ‘‘External’’
Considerations in the
Institutionalization of
Political Institutions
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Unlike economists and sociologists, political scientists have placed considerable
emphasis on institutionalization. There is no absence of interest in this case, as in
the deWnition of institutions, but the origins of the institutionalization process and
the forms it takes need a comprehensive examination. Admittedly, Huntington is
concerned with the ways in which and to an extent with the reasons for which
institutionalization develops, but as the sociologists tend to do, merely ‘‘internally.’’
He notes that time is crucial for the four key characteristics of institutionalization,
adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence, to mature but the process is
presented in a rather mechanical manner. Time is viewed as being by itself one of
the ‘‘causes,’’ so to speak, of institutionalization (Huntington 1968 , 13 ): Yet it is
simply not the case that ‘‘the longer an organisation or procedure has been in
existence, the higher the level of institutionalisation’’ ( 1968 , 13 – 14 ). The process is
not only unlikely to be linear; it can also be reversed, as is shown by examples of
decline and collapse of well-established regimes. Huntington himself does indeed
point out that when ‘‘a function is no longer needed, the organization faces a major
crisis: It eitherWnds a new function or reconciles itself to a lingering death’’ ( 1968 ,
15 ). However, the analysis is concerned only with the extent to which, within the
institution, there is more adaptability, complexity, autonomy, or coherence, as a
sociologist such as Scott does when he refers to Parsons: ‘‘A system of action was
said [by Parsons] to be ‘institutionalised’ to the extent that actors in an ongoing
relation oriented their actions to a common set of normative standards and value
patterns’’ (Scott 1995 , 12 ). What is not taken into account is how the institution
relates to the rest of the society, although this matter is crucial in the case of
political institutions, since, as we noted, these institutions exist essentially in order
to aVect the polity as a whole.
Huntington is not the only author to consider institutionalization merely from
the point of view of the internal problems of the institution. Goodin and his
collaborators, thirty years later, inThe Theory of Institutional Design( 1996 ), analyze
the problem from the same standpoint. In the introductory chapter to the volume,
Goodin suggests that institutional change emerges in three ways, by accident, by
evolution, or by intention or design ( 1996 ,24 V). In this third case, the analysis of
the development of institutions is exclusively devoted to the various ways in which
‘‘agents’’ develop their designs, which can be on ‘‘policy,’’ on ‘‘mechanisms,’’ and on
‘‘system’’ ( 1996 , 31 – 3 ). These distinctions may well correspond to diVerent ways in
726 jean blondel