This has been a book on substance, not on methodology, or on the history of the social sciences. Yet it cannot but make a contribution to the long-standing dispute among institutionalists over the appropriate paradigm. All the many strands of institutionalism are united by their conviction that institutions matter. But they are fiercely divided when it comes to defining institutions, to forging conceptual tools and to drawing normative conclusions. This book cuts across many of the dividing lines. Predictability turns out to be an issue for most strands of institutional thinking. This book demonstrates that it makes sense to combine tools and insights from many institutionalisms, and that this can be done in a methodologically controlled way. Paradigmatically, it shows how, for institutionalists, the interaction with their conceptual competitors can bear fruit.

This is not the place to write yet another summary report on institutionalism. Suffice it to remind the reader of the major catchwords. The most popular typology distinguishes between rational choice, sociological and historical institutionalism, to which sometimes an empirical, an international and a societal strand are added. Others prefer a less disciplinary, and a more methodology-driven classification. They distinguish a rational-choice, a social-constructivist and a ‘mediated-conflict’ version of institutionalism. There is also an uneven willingness to see the respective ‘old institutionalism’ as a predecessor: some view it as an adversary, instead.

Some strands of institutionalist thinking have little, if anything, to do with the topic of this book.