in this case, an ‘‘institutionalization’’ period with the consequence that some
arrangements are ‘‘more’’ (or ‘‘less’’) institutional than others or that the same
arrangements become ‘‘more’’ (or ‘‘less’’) institutional?
- 1 Institutionalization in Political Science, Economics, and
Sociology
The question of institutionalization has concerned political scientists more than
other social scientists, Huntington being perhaps the political scientist who
reXected most on the problem. From his view that, as we noted, institutions are
‘‘organisations and procedures which acquire value and stability’’ ( 1968 , 12 ), it can
be inferred that the process takes place over time. Institutions do not have ‘‘value
and stability’’ automatically from the moment they are set up. Indeed, an often-
cited ( 1962 ) Polsby article in theAmerican Political Science Reviewhad given an
empirical basis to such a standpoint: It showed in great detail the way in which the
districts of the House had become more competitive in the course of the develop-
ment of the American republic. What Huntington stated six years later seemed to
be a general and theoretical statement of the viewpoint that institutionalization
takes time.
In this, as with respect to the nature of institutions, political science diVers from
economics and sociology, a point which does not appear to have been noted. In
these last two disciplines, arrangements seem to become institutions immediately.
D. C. North notes that there is institutional change, but nowhere does he mention
institutionalization. He refers to the fact that ‘‘institutions change incrementally’’
( 1990 , 6 ), but merely to state that these changes take place incrementally ‘‘rather
than in a discontinuous fashion’’ (North 1990 , 6 ). What is being considered is how
property rights have come to be altered in diVerent societies, but not how, in the
speciWc economic case, these ‘‘rules’’ have ‘‘acquire[d] value and stability.’’
An economist interested in institutions and their role, such as North, is not
concerned with how institutions (i.e. rules)develop, but (merely) how new rules
replace older ones.
Given that economists view institutions exclusively as rules, it is perhaps not
surprising that their approach to these rules should not be ‘‘evolutionary.’’ It is
more surprising that this should be the case for sociologists, since they are
concerned with organizations as well as with rules. It might indeed seem that
sociological theory should be ‘‘evolutionary’’ about institutions. W. R. Scott uses
the concept of institutionalization, which is listed in the index (but not in
North’s text). However, in Scott’s text, the role of time is wholly diVerent
724 jean blondel