Institutions in the new approaches like behavioralism and functionalism were nolonger independent entities and were dealt with—according to research questions
as ‘‘independent or dependent variables’’—just like other elements of analysis. In
‘‘structural functionalism’’ the systemic needs of the social system tended to pro-
duce political institutions needed to solve the basic problems of any society
(Eisenstadt 1965 ). Thus the analysis ended in a global justiWcation of all the
institutions developed in various societies. ‘‘Historical institutionalism’’ was closest
to treating institutions, such as ‘‘the state,’’ as the independent variable. The impact
of institutions was studied over time—from the way political groups deWned their
interests to policy outcomes under various regimes (Steinmo and Longstreth 1992 ).
The old generalization of modernization theories was overcome. Researchers
discovered the dependence of policy outcomes on historical institutions and
decisions which could not easily be changed by political actors. Policy results
proved to be ‘‘path dependent.’’ A variety of models—particularly in theWeld of
welfare policies—was discovered (Esping-Andersen 1990 ). The new institutional-
ism can better account for the paths that political actors will follow in order to
arrive at the prescribed equilibria.
Behavioralism and functionalism were the major foes of the old institutional
school represented by Carl J. Friedrich and Herman Finer. The old institutionalism
paradoxically got theoretical support from radical political thinkers who opposed
the institutions of the existing Western democracies.Neo-Marxismandradical
post-behavioralist approaches brought the ‘‘State back in’’ even in American dis-
cussions. But political institutions were always the dependent variable; the inde-
pendent variable was the economic subsystem of society. Systems theory reacted in
a hostile way to the new debate on the state. David Easton ( 1981 , 322 ), a pioneer in
substituting the ‘‘political system’’ to old-fashioned theories of ‘‘the state,’’ was
afraid that the neoradical wave in political theory from Miliband to Poulantzas
might end up in a ‘‘romantic backlash’’ and that the state would start to besiege the
political system. Easton’s misgivings were exaggerated. Neither neo-Marxism nor
neoconservatism elaborated a new metaphysical concept of the state. But since
these new approaches concentrated on the economic aspects of the relationship
between state and society, they failed to develop a diVerentiated theory of institu-
tions. At the end of the neoradical movement which had inXuenced the develop-
ment of political theories, the holistic theories of the 1960 s were approaching each
other.
The new wave of thepolicy approachin the 1970 s ended in a merger of systems
theory and neo-Marxist state theories. A central actor was needed and though many
empirical scholars no longer called it ‘‘the state,’’ a great variety of actors and their
institutions were introduced in order to demonstrate the genesis of a decision—or
of a ‘‘non-decision.’’Network approachesdiscovered so many veto-players to avoid
the impression that one actor, such as ‘‘the state,’’ was still considered as an
ontological entity as in some older institutionalist theories (Tsebelis 2002 ).
political institutions—old and new 749