1

Traditional and Neo-Institutionalism are two major approaches to studying comparative politics.
Explain, keeping in view the three sub-approaches : historical institutionalism, rational-choice
theory, and sociological institutionalism.

INTRODUCTION- WHAT IS COMPARITIVE POLITICS

Comparative politics is the comparative study of other countries, citizens, different political units
either in whole or in part, and analyzes the similarities and differences between those political
units
.Many political theorists like Arend Lijphart argued that comparative politics does not have a
functional focus in itself, instead a methodological one (Lijphart, Arend,1971). In simple form,
comparative politics is not defined by the object of its study, but by the method it applies to
study political phenomena.Comparative politics is the systematic study and comparison of the
diverse political systems in the world. It is comparative in searching to explain why different
political systems have similarities or differences and how developmental changes came to be
between them. It is systematic in that it looks for trends, patterns, and regularities among these
political systems.

APPROACHES FOR STUDYING COMPARITIVE POLITICS

Traditional approach -
Traditional institutionalism is a popular theoretical approach in political science that stresses the
importance of formal institutions in affecting political behavior and results. It arose as a reaction
to the shortcomings of previous theories, such as behavioralism, which overlooked the relevance
of institutions in political analysis. Traditional institutionalism holds that political institutions,
such as constitutions, laws, and bureaucracies, are the fundamental structures that organize and
control political activity in a country.
Characteristics -
● Traditional institutionalism emphasizes formal institutions, which are the rules,
procedures, and organizations that govern political processes, providing the framework
for political actors to operate and make decisions.
● The historical perspective highlights the significant role of historical events, processes,
and legacies in shaping contemporary political institutions, making understanding their
development crucial for analyzing their functions and impacts.
● Traditional institutionalism sees institutions as long-lasting political structures that
uphold social order, stability, and continuity across time.
● Institutionalism investigates how institutions impact political outcomes by creating
incentives, opportunities, and limitations for political players and regulating interactions
between them.
Traditional institutionalism explains how institutions shape political outcomes through various
mechanisms. Institutions limit political players' actions by establishing norms and limits, while
simultaneously allowing collaboration and decision-making. They incentivize some actions
while discouraging others, such as electoral systems encouraging politicians to embrace
3

particular policies or campaign techniques. The notion of path dependency is also highlighted, in
which previous institutional choices and actions influence future results. Institutions can be
difficult to reform, resulting in a path-dependent pattern of political growth.

Kenneth Shepsle and Barry Weingast's "Political Institutions: Old and New" (1987), Theda
Skocpol's "States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and
China" (1979), Douglas North's "Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance"
(1990), and Robert Dahl's "Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition" (1971), which emphasize
the importance of institutional design.
There are a large number of traditional approaches, like the legal approach, the philosophical
approach, the historical approach, the institutional approach,etc.
1. Legal approach -
The legal approach to politics aims to understand politics in terms of law, focusing on the legal
and constitutional framework that governs different government organs. It examines their legal
positions, powers, and procedures for making their actions legally valid. For example, in Indian
politics, it analyzes the legal implications of the Indian Constitution, the formation and legal
position of the two Houses of Parliament and State legislatures, the election or appointment
procedures, the powers and positions of the President, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief
Ministers, Central and State Cabinets, the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, the federal
setup, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles of State Policy. In international politics, the
legal approach analyzes it in terms of international law requirements. All political processes,
whether they are independence movements, civil rights agitations, or concessions for various
sections of society, must culminate in legal provisions for effective and stable political processes.
Despite its limited use in understanding politics, the study of constitutional law and international
law continues to play a pivotal role in social and political life in almost every country.
2. Philosophical approach -
The philosophical approach to political science seeks to explain concepts and provide "standards
of right and wrong" for assessing current institutions, laws, and policies. It may be traced back to
ancient thinkers like as Plato and Aristotle, and Leo Strauss was a fan. This method stresses the
ethical and normative study of politics, concentrating on the nature and function of the state,
citizenship, rights, and responsibilities. Its subjects often revolve around moral reasoning, which
cannot be empirically proved. The philosophical approach is idealistic, focusing on
comprehending the essence of political objects and the proper or desirable political system.
3. Historical approach -
According to the historical approach to politics, a greater understanding of political phenomena
necessitates taking into account historical characteristics such as age, location, and
circumstances. Political scholars such as Machiavelli, Sabine, and Dunning contend that politics
and history are inextricably linked and that studying politics should always include a historical
viewpoint. Sabine argues that political science should encompass all topics covered in the
literature of many political theorists from Plato's time. The historical method may be used in two
ways: to construct rules controlling politics through an examination of historical normative
4

occurrences, and to try to comprehend politics through a historical account of previous political
philosophy, as demonstrated by George H. Sabine's 'A History of Political Theory'. Critics claim
that comprehending historical ideas in terms of present notions is difficult and that past ideas are
insufficient to resolve current difficulties that past philosophers were unable to comprehend.
Neo institutional approach -
The neo Institutionalism evolved in the 1980s and 1990s as a novel approach to analyzing
political institutions. It drew on economics, sociology, and political science to create a complete
knowledge of institutions and their influence on political behavior and results. The approach
highlighted the role of institutions in affecting individual behavior, social relationships, and
political processes. It understood that institutions are more than just reflections of human
choices; they have independent influence on outcomes. The method also investigated how
institutions generate incentives, restrict behaviors, and provide political stability. It also
emphasized the historical and cultural contexts within which institutions function, as well as their
path-dependent growth and evolution. Neo-institutionalism is a key progression in institutional
research that emerged in reaction to classic institutionalism's perceived limits. While
conventional institutionalism was primarily concerned with formal structures and procedures,
neo-institutionalism broadens the scope to encompass informal norms and practices,
acknowledging the complex interplay between formal institutions and the larger social milieu in
which they function.
The New Institutionalism approach, developed by scholars, uses various research methods like
case studies and comparative analysis to study the role of institutions in political processes. It
promotes interdisciplinary collaboration and dialogue with other approaches like behaviourism,
rational choice theory, structuralism, Marxism, and post-structuralism. This approach provides a
nuanced understanding of power, conflict, and institutional change dynamics, acknowledging
that institutions are dynamic and subject to change.
Characteristics -
● Institutional emphasis: Neo-institutional comparative analysis focuses on both formal and
informal structures as important predictors of political conduct and results.
● Holistic perspective: It considers both formal and informal aspects of institutions,
acknowledging their interplay within larger social and historical frameworks.
● Historical sensitivity: Neo-institutional analysis recognizes the significance of historical
trajectories and path dependency in affecting institutional growth and sustainability.
● Multi-level analysis: It takes a multi-level perspective, studying institutions and political
processes at all sizes, from local to global.
● Interdisciplinary approach: Neo-institutional comparative analysis uses concepts from a
variety of disciplines, including political science, sociology, economics, and history, to
better comprehend the complex dynamics of institutions.
● Contextual awareness: It acknowledges that institutions are rooted in larger sociopolitical
settings, emphasizing the significance of knowing these contexts when examining
institutional behavior and consequences.
5

● Neo-institutional analysis focuses on change and continuity throughout time,

investigating how historical legacies and route dependencies impact institutional
trajectories.
● Comparative perspective: It analyzes institutions and political processes in various
nations or areas to uncover patterns of resemblance and difference and to better
understand the variables that drive diversity in institutional results.
Neo-institutionalism is a theory that explores the
role of institutions in shaping political phenomena. Three sub-approaches have emerged within
this framework: Historical Institutionalism, which focuses on the historical roots and
evolutionary trajectories of institutions, and Rational-Choice Theory, which applies economic
rationality to political decision-making. Historical institutionalism emphasizes the path-
dependent nature of institutional development, suggesting that past decisions and events shape
the present and constrain future possibilities. It provides insights into the persistence and
transformation of political structures. Rational-choice theory, on the other hand, applies
economic rationality to political decision-making, focusing on the incentives and constraints that
institutions create for political actors. It offers insights into the functioning of political systems
and the outcomes they produce. Sociological institutionalism, on the other hand, emphasizes the
role of social norms, cultural values, and collective beliefs in shaping institutions and political
behavior. It argues that institutions are not just formal structures but are embedded within
broader social systems characterized by shared meanings and symbols.
Subapproaches within neo institutional theory:
Rational choice theory -
Rational choice institutionalism, rooted in economics and organizational theory, views
institutions as systems of rules and incentives, where rules are contested to gain leverage for one
group of political actors. It explains political decision making through modeling assumptions and
game theory, with scholars often focusing on a single institution in a specific time frame.Rational
choice Institutionalism is a theoretical approach that investigates how institutions shape
individual behavior. It is based on studies of American congressional behavior and assumes fixed
preferences in order to optimize self-interest. RCI sees politics as a series of collective action
challenges in which players make decisions based on perceived costs and rewards. Drawing on
the "new economics of organization," it highlights the importance of property rights, rent-
seeking, and transaction costs in comprehending institutional behavior. RCI examines incentives,
limitations, and decision-making processes within institutional contexts, employing formal
models, game theory, and quantitative tools to assess institutional behavior and consequences.
Application of Economic Principles to Political Behavior-
Rational-choice theory is a strategy for understanding political behavior and consequences by
applying economic concepts. It sees politics as a competition and strategic interaction in which
people and groups pursue their goals within a system of incentives and restrictions. The idea is
based on utility maximization, in which people select acts that maximize their expected benefit,
which might be material rewards like riches or power or non-material goals like freedom or
justice. This theory contends that people are driven to behave in ways that increase their utility,
6

such as voting, lobbying, or collective action. It also emphasizes how institutions such as
election systems, party organizations, and legislative procedures influence political players'
strategic calculations and decision-making processes.
Historical approach -
Historical Institutionalism is a political science paradigm that examines the influence of
institutions on political and economic activity, emphasizing its unequal distribution and
functioning. It understands that institutions are dynamic and adaptable. Historical
Institutionalism brings together several disciplines, including political science, economics, and
sociology, to give a holistic knowledge of institutions and their impacts. It highlights the
interaction between institutions and ideas or beliefs, which creates distinct courses and shapes a
country's reaction to rising difficulties. Historical Institutionalism explains how institutions shape
political outcomes by evaluating many historical situations.Historical institutionalism is a
political science approach that emphasizes the influence of historical legacies and path
dependency on current political outcomes. It posits that institutions evolve over time and aims to
explain how past decisions and choices influence current political behavior.
Emphasis on Path Dependency and Historical Legacies- Historical institutionalism is based on
the idea of path dependency, which suggests that the development of institutions is influenced by
past decisions and events. This concept suggests that small, contingent events can have long-
lasting effects on institutional development, leading to patterns of continuity or rigidity.
Historical institutionists argue that understanding the historical context is crucial for
comprehending why institutions take certain forms and how they function. By tracing the roots
of institutions and analyzing institutional change processes, historical institutionalism offers
insights into political structure persistence and transformation.
Examination of Past Institutional Choices and Current Political Outcomes- Historical
institutionalism is a field that studies how past decisions and actions have shaped current
political outcomes. It focuses on the path dependence of institutions, which can have lasting
effects on political representation, party competition, and policymaking. It also emphasizes the
dynamic nature of institutions, which evolve over time in response to changing social, economic,
and political conditions. Historical institutionalism also examines the legacy effects of past
institutions, which leave lasting imprints on political culture, behavior, and norms, shaping
governance, political participation, and public policy.
Examples of Research Applying Historical Institutionalism- Historical institutionalism is used in
comparative welfare state studies to analyze the development of welfare states across different
countries. It examines the origins of welfare policies, institutional configurations, and policy
legacies to explain cross-national variations in social policy regimes and redistributive outcomes.
It also helps analyze the impact of constitutional design on democratic stability and political
outcomes. It also helps study institutional change and policy reform processes in various policy
domains, such as healthcare, education, and environmental regulation, to understand how
institutions adapt to new challenges and ideas over time.
Sociological institutionalism -
7

Sociological Institutionalism is a theory that focuses on the relationship between institutions and
society, arguing that authorized structures are rational and efficient. It suggests that the adoption
of new institutional practices is not solely due to their effectiveness in achieving desired
outcomes, but rather because they enhance the acceptance and legitimacy of institutions or their
participants in the eyes of the public. This perspective offers a unique perspective on the
relationship between institutions and individual action, suggesting that societies constantly adopt
new practices to improve the acceptance and legitimacy of these institutions. Sociological
institutionalism is a political science approach that examines the social norms, values, and
identities that underpin institutions, viewing them as not just formal structures but also social
constructs embedded within broader social systems. It emphasizes the importance of
understanding the social context in which institutions operate and their influence on social
interactions, beliefs, and practices.
Focus on Social Norms, Values, and Identities-
Sociological institutionalism emphasizes the importance of institutions as deeply embedded in
social networks, cultural systems, and collective identities. It posits that institutions reflect and
reinforce societal norms, values, and identities, shaping behavior patterns and political outcomes.
Norms are unwritten rules that guide individual and collective behavior within society, and
institutions often embody and enforce these norms, influencing the actions and decisions of
political actors.Sociological institutionalism emphasizes the importance of values in shaping
political behavior. Institutions reflect and promote certain values, such as equality, freedom, and
participation, which influence policy decisions and public discourse. It also highlights the role of
collective identities in shaping political behavior, as individuals and groups define themselves
and their relationships with others. Institutions serve as symbols of collective identity,
reinforcing group boundaries and identities, such as national institutions that evoke patriotism
and solidarity, shaping political loyalties and identities.
Examination of Social Embeddedness and Political Behavior
Sociological institutionalism studies how institutions are socially embedded and how this affects
political behavior. It focuses on socialization and learning, as institutions transmit norms, values,
and identities to society, shaping political attitudes and behavior. It also examines how social
networks and relationships influence institutional behavior and decision-making, as they shape
patterns of cooperation, conflict, and exchange among political actors. It also explores the
cultural dynamics that underpin institutions, as they are embedded within shared meanings,
symbols, and practices. By analyzing these cultural repertoires and discursive practices,
researchers can uncover the cultural logics that inform institutional behavior and shape political
outcomes.
Examples of Research Applying Sociological Institutionalism in Comparative Politics-
Sociological institutionalism is used to study the relationship between national identity and
institutional design in comparative politics. It examines how national narratives influence
institutional choices, how social movements drive institutional change, and the gendered nature
of institutions. It helps understand the barriers to women's political participation and the
8

prospects for gender-sensitive reform. Overall, sociological institutionalism offers insights into
the complex interplay between institutions, society, and politics in comparative contexts.
Comparison and Criticism:
Traditional Institutionalism vs. Neo-Institutionalism:
Strengths of Traditional Institutionalism:
● Concentrates on formal structures and norms, establishing explicit frameworks for study.
● Emphasizes institutional stability and consistency, which can be useful for assessing
long-term trends.
Weaknesses of traditional insitutionalism:
● It tends to neglect the significance of informal norms and practices, which limits its
explanatory value.
● It may be difficult to account for long-term institutional change and adaptability.
Strengths of Neo-Institutionalism:
● Broadens the scope to incorporate informal norms and practices, resulting in a more
complete knowledge of institutions.
● Emphasizes the significance of historical context and route dependency, providing
insights into the processes of institutional development.
Weaknesses of Neo-institutionalism:
● The emphasis on route dependency can be too deterministic, thereby undermining the
role of agency and contingency.
● Integrating ideas from historical, rational-choice, and sociological methods can provide
theoretical and methodological obstacles.
Contributions of Sub-Approaches
● Historical Institutionalism delves into the historical foundations and evolutionary
trajectories of institutions, emphasizing the significance of path dependency and
institutional legacies.
● The rational-choice theory, which focuses on incentives, limitations, and strategic
decision-making, provides a framework for examining both individual and group
behavior in institutional situations.
● Sociological institutionalism highlights how social norms, beliefs, and identities shape
political conduct and institutions, emphasizing how socially rooted institutions are.
Challenges in Theory and Methodology:
● Keeping various points of view in balance: It can be difficult to integrate historical,
rational-choice, and sociological perspectives within neo-institutionalism; rigorous
theoretical and methodological synthesis is necessary.
● Taking care of agency and contingency: The focus placed by neo-institutionalism on
historical legacies and path dependency may cause it to ignore the influence of agency
and contingency on institutional outcomes.
● Complexity of causal processes: Rigorous empirical research is necessary to comprehend
the causal pathways relating institutions, behavior, and results. Methodological issues
like endogeneity and selection bias may also arise.
9

CONCLUSION-
In conclusion, the study of comparative politics involves the analysis of political systems
in different countries, focusing on similarities, differences, and developmental changes.
Traditional institutionalism and neo-institutionalism are two major approaches to
studying comparative politics, with sub-approaches including historical institutionalism,
rational-choice theory, and sociological institutionalism. Each sub-approach offers unique
insights into the role of institutions in shaping political behavior and outcomes,
emphasizing the significance of historical context, incentives, and social norms. The
holistic and interdisciplinary nature of neo-institutional analysis provides a nuanced
understanding of power dynamics, institutional change, and the complex interplay
between formal and informal structures. Overall, the study of comparative politics and
institutionalism offers valuable perspectives for understanding the complexities of
political systems and their impacts on society.
REFERNCES –

 https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/sPanel/uploads/econtent/
64f62e627be9f3fa4849dbf539388fe0.p
 https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/psp03/chapter/institutional-approach/
 https://www.iilsindia.com/study-material/408778_1599930677.pdf
 https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/sPanel/uploads/econtent/
64f62e627be9f3fa4849dbf539388fe0.pdf
 https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7404964.pdf
10