1. how is relationship between behaviour and institution constructed?
2. how to explain the process whereby institutions originate or change

founded on assumption in group theories and structural functionalism (1960s, 1970s)

group theory: conflict among rival groups for scarce resources lies at the heart of political conflict

Historical instituionalism looks for better explanations for the dinstinctiveness of national political outcomes, focuses on the way insitutional organizations and economy structures conflict so as to privilege some interest while demobilizing others 

Importance of formal political institutions, yet broader view than before

structural functionalists saw polity as an overall system of interacting parts and has a tendency to view social, psychological or cultural traits of individuals as the parameters driving an organizations operation.

Historical institutionalism sees the institutional organization as the principal factor in generating distinctive outcomes

exploration how other social and political institutions (apart from the state) can structure interactions so as to generate distinctive national outcomes

Mostly cross-national comparisons of public policy, typically emphasizing the impact of national political situations, structuring relations among legislators, organized interests, the electorate and the judiciary

Formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy. Can range from constitutional order to operating procedures of a bureaucracy and the conventions governing trade unions 

>tendency to view formal institutions

1. tend to conceptualize the relationship between institutions and indidivdual behaviour in relatively broad terms
2. emphasize the asymmetries of power associated with the operation and development of institutions
3. have a view of institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and inintended consequences
4. especially concerned to integrate institutional analysis with the contribution that other kind of factors, such as ideas can make to political outcomes

1. calculus approach, indivdual calculates strategically to attain maximum of his preferences (institution mainly changes the expectation a person has over the reaction of other individuals)
2. cultural approach, individual behaviour is not completely strategic, but bounded by an individual's worldview. While behaviour is rational individuals tend to revert to familiar patterns, ie they are not utility maximizers

provide moral or cognitive tamplates for interpretation and action. Individual is deeply imbricated in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts and routines, whicht provide filters for interpretation of both the situation and oneself.

institutions provide strategically-useful information and also affect the very identities, self-images and preferences of the actors.

1. calculus approach: individuals will adhere to institutions pattern, because deviance will make them worse off. The more an institution influences the resolution of collective dilemmas, the more robust it will be.
2. cultural approach: institutions are resistant to redesign, because ultimately they structure the choices about reform that the individual is likely to make

usually divided into periods of continuitiy, punctuated by "critical junctures" i.e. moments when substantial institutional change takes place, thereby creating a branching point from which historical development moves onto a new path

> however, what causes such junctions is poorly explained 

institutions are not seen as only causal force in politics, typically institutions are tried to locate within a causal chain that also includes other factors, such as socioeconomic factors and the diffusion of ideas

>more complex than rational choice institutionalism in this respect

1. employ a characteristic set of behavioral assumption. In general they assume that the relevant actors have a fixed set of preferences or tates, behave entirely instrumentally so as to maximize the attainment of these preferences and do so in a highly strategic manner
2. Politics as a series of collective action dilemmas. Individuals acting to maximize their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively suboptimal. The reason is the absence of institutional arrangements that would guarantee complementary behaviour (prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons)
3. Emphasizes the role of strategic interaction in the determination of political outcomes: actor is driven by a strategic calculus, which will be highly influenced by how the actor expects others will react. Institutions affect the range and sequence of alternatives, leading actors to specific calculations (classic calculus approach)
4. institutions are created because they attain certain values for the actors creating it (voluntary agreement), it will survive if it provides more benefits to actors than competing institutions. 

based within organization theory, primarily stating that bureaucracies are not created on the basis of maximising efficiency but as a result of cultural practices

> why do orgnanizations take on specific forms, procedures and symbols?  E.g. similarities of Ministries of Education thourghout the world, similarities of industrial companies, regardless of product

1. tend to define institutions very broad, including symbol systems, cognitive scripts and moral templates > breaks down division between institution and culture, redefines culture as an institution
2. distinctive approach between institutions and individual actions, different from classical view institutions do not onyl presrcibe actions, but provide cognitive scripts, categories and models that are indispensable for deciding on an action. Provide terms through which meaning is assigned in life. Remain goal-oriented i.e. rational.
3. organizations embrace specific institutional form because they are widely valued within a broader cultural environment (rather than due to efficiency)

1. historical institutionalism uses both calculus and cultural approaches, which is a virtue but comes at the expense of eclecticism.
2. rational choice institutionalism developed concept that lend themselves well for systematic theory building. Also emphasizes that political action involves management of uncertainty and that strategic interactions between actors influence policy outcomes. However, relies on relatively simplistic view of human motivation
3. sociological institutionalism specifies ways in which institutions can affect the underlying preferences of actors that rational choice institutionalists must take as given.

1. Rational choice institutionalism turns primarily on the functions an institution performs, which efficiently explains why institutions (continue) to exist. However does not explain why so many inefficient institutions exist. Originally the framework for creation of an institution might be much more complex than proposed by rational choice institutionalism. More accurate as to why institutions continue to exist rather than how they are created. Primarily deductive. 
2. historical and sociological institutionalism insist that new institutions are created in a world already filled with institutions. Heavily inductive.
3. Sociological institutionalism describes how existing institutions influence the creation of new institutions, explains existing inefficiencies.
4. historical institutionalism highlights how existing institutions give more powers to some for creating new institutions than they do to others. 

all of the theories reflect genuine human behaviour, should be combined rather than separated