| Abstract: | The efflorescence of work on new institutionalism has encouraged scholars to build bridges between various schools of thought. Such cross-fertilisation enlivens the debate but runs the risk of erecting bridges on shaky foundations. My article seeks to minimise this risk by going back to basics. It narrows the field of inquiry to the economic and the sociological institutionalist tradition represented by Williamson on one side, and the collaborative work of March and Olsen on the other. It explores and assesses their contribution on three interrelated issues fundamental to any analysis of political institutions: the goals attributed to institutions, the theory of action and the commitment to methodological individualism versus methodological holism. I conclude by noting that in the transition from the old to the new institutionalism – as represented in the works of these authors – the role of power conflicts, negotiations and bargaining between individuals seems to have lost its central position. |
