eliminate whole ranges of possibilities from later choices while serving as the very
condition of existence of others (see also Tilly 1994 ). Yet, pointing to path depend-
ence does not preclude the identiWcation of moments of path-shaping institutional
change, in which the institutional architecture is signiWcantly reconWgured.
Moreover, and at odds with most existing new institutionalist scholarship, such
path-shaping institutional change is not merely seen as a more-or-less functional
response to exogenous shocks.
Further diVerentiating it from new institutionalist orthodoxy, constructivist
institutionalists emphasize not only institutional path dependence, but also
ideational path dependence. In other words, it is not just institutions, but the
very ideas on which they are predicated and which inform their design and
development, that exert constraints on political autonomy. Institutions are built
on ideational foundations which exert an independent path dependent eVect on
their subsequent development.
Constructivist institutionalism thus seeks to identify, detail, and interrogate
the extent to which—through processes of normalization and institutional-
embedding—established ideas become codiWed, serving as cognitiveWlters through
which actors come to interpret environmental signals. Yet, crucially, they are also
concerned with the conditions under which such established cognitive Wlters
and paradigms are contested, challenged, and replaced. Moreover, they see
paradigmatic shifts as heralding signiWcant institutional change.
Such a formulation implies a dynamic understanding of the relationship
between institutions on the one hand, and the individuals and groups who
comprise them (and on whose experience they impinge) on the other. It empha-
sizes institutional innovation, dynamism, and transformation, as well as the need
for a consideration of processes of change over a signiWcant period of time. In so
doing it oVers the potential to overturn new institutionalism’s characteristic
emphasis upon institutional inertia. At the same time, however, such a schema
recognizes that institutional change does indeed occur in a context which is
structured (not least by institutions and ideas about institutions) in complex and
constantly changing ways which facilitate certain forms of intervention whilst
militating against others. Moreover, access to strategic resources, and indeed to
knowledge of the institutional environment, is unevenly distributed. This in turn
aVects the ability of actors to transform the contexts (institutional and otherwise)
in which theyWnd themselves.
Finally, it is important to emphasize the crucial space granted to ideas within this
formulation. Actors appropriate strategically a world replete with institutions and
ideas about institutions. Their perceptions about what is feasible, legitimate,
possible, and desirable are shaped both by the institutional environment in
which theyWnd themselves and by existing policy paradigms and world-views. It
is through such cognitive Wlters that strategic conduct is conceptualized and
ultimately assessed.
constructivist institutionalism 65