chapter 5
...................................................................................................................................................NETWORK
INSTITUTIONALISM
...................................................................................................................................................christopher ansell
1Overview
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
In some respects, ‘‘network institutionalism’’ is an oxymoron. The term ‘‘network’’ tends
to imply informality and personalism, while ‘‘institutionalism’’ suggests formality and
impersonalism. Network perspectives also tend to be more behavioral than institutional.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to understand networks as informal institutions (though
they may in some cases be formal). In this sense, a network can be thought of as an
institution to the extent that it represents astable or recurrent patternof behavioral
interaction or exchange between individuals or organizations. In much the same spirit as
Peter Hall has described institutionalism, the network approach views networks as critical
mediating variables that aVect the distribution of power, the construction of interests and
identities, and the dynamics of interaction (Hall 1986 , 19 – 20 ).
No single network paradigm exists, but rather overlapping discussions in political
science, organization theory, public administration, and economic sociology. Yet it is
fair to say that four meta-principles or assumptions are shared across the various
strands of network institutionalism. 1 TheWrst and most general principle is a
relational perspectiveon social, political, and economic action. Emirbayer ( 1997 )
contrasts relational with attributional approaches to social explanation. In the latter,
1 Wellman ( 1988 ) provides both an intellectual history of the network approach and an important
statement of its distinctiveness.