THE CONCEPT OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
The hypothesis of this paper states that the international embedded ness of the EU causes institutional changes within the EU system. This poses one of the most important but at the same time most difficult questions – that of the dynamics of European integration. How do changes within the EU come about? In this article a broad definition of institution is used which goes beyond the dimension of a rule-setting organ. Institutions also employ and transmit routines, ideas and social construction. It is assumed that institutional change is taking place if the paradigms and norms of an institution are transforming and patterns of behavior are changing. In the tradition of Max Weber, institutions have a broader meaning: political institutions just like any other institutions are sets of social regulations incorporated in practices and rules that define appropriate behavior. Institutions thrive on shared concepts about what is legitimate and effective just as well as on firmly routed routines and patterns of interaction.
According to Olsen the process of institutionalization comprises: (a) ‘structuration and routinization’ — which means the development of impersonal rules, roles and decision-making procedures; (b) ‘standardization, homogenization and authorization of codes of meaning, ways of reasoning and accounts’; and (c) ‘binding resources to values and worldviews’, meaning resources that enable institutions to realize rule-binding behavior in cases of ‘non-compliance’. Within integrated polities which are ‘organized around well-defined boundaries, common rules and practices, shared causal and normative understandings, and resources adequate for collective action’ (March and Olsen 1998: 9434), processes of institutionalization include: (1) reorganizing and rewriting institutional forms, rules, roles and standards; (2) reinterpreting principles and doctrines, frames of understanding and justification, including who is to be accepted as an authoritative interpreter of principles, rules and situations; and (3) reallocating resources and changing principles for allocating resources (Olsen 2000: 6). These explanations given by Olsen already hint at the central elements of which an institution consists. Constitutive elements of institutions are: (1) the organization of politics (who is allowed to govern by law and which are the legal rules on decision-making processes); (2) established routines (routines of decision-making and implementation and regularly involved actors); and (3) concepts of legitimate order (guiding principles on good and effective governance). When starting from such an understanding of institutions, we have to look not only for changes that might take place in the organization of politics but also in daily routines of policy formulation and implementation or in the acceptance of dominant belief systems. Changes may come about by: (1) imposition, e.g. treaty revision and formal intergovernmental agreement affecting the formal organization of politics; (2) involvement by providing channels of access and participation and incorporating principles in political programmes affecting the patterns of interaction; and (3) supply, by propagating appropriate and exemplary concepts affecting the shared beliefs of European or national actors (see Kohler-Koch and Knodt 1997: 7).
If we were only to look at change by imposition, we would limit ourselves, because governments are hesitant to become engaged in such a heavy task. In the last fifty years of European integration, we have seen just a few Intergovernmental Conferences (IGCs). From the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and Euratom in the 1950s we can currently name only four ICCs (Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice) resulting in treaty revision. Furthermore, the revisions have to be agreed upon unanimously, and therefore it is highly unlikely that they will be directed towards a thorough transformation of established patterns of governance. Any direct intervention in the internal constitutional set-up of member states touches upon the most vital interest of member states. Therefore, it seems to be advisable to focus additionally on international activities that offer attractive concepts of involvement and supply which could be taken up by European and national actors, thereby inducing institutional change. International negotiation systems such as the WTO are carriers of guiding ideas, norms and rules which can influence policy-making within the EU.
WTO ideas and norms can be anticipated and used for purposes of argument within the EU by European actors. The ‘Staatenverbund’ EU depends on the propagation of guiding ideas and norms – which can vary according to policy because only commitment to common principles and norms can ensure durable co-operation. As we have learned from regime theory, especially in those cases where compliance cannot be assured by legal binding decisions, normative commitment is essential. This commitment to common EU ideas and norms is now challenged by sometimes competing ideas and norms at the international level. The interaction of these different ideas and norms can cause institutional change. Now we will examine how this can happen in the empirical world. This paper will present empirical evidence for all three dimensions of institutional change described above.
Incoming search terms:
- Institutional Chage July 8 1997 (2)
- institutional change essay (1)
- institutional educationsl change (1)
- the concept of change essay (1)
Order Today!
