Festschrift für Fritz W. Scharpf - MPIfG

V. Schmidt · The Boundaries of “Bounded Generalizations” 319
More specifically, I elaborate a framework for the analysis of discourse
that is not in and of itself a theory but, rather, has the same epistemological
status as rational choice, historical, or sociological institutionalism, that is,
as a descriptive language or analytic framework that allows one to identify,
describe, and analyze important phenomena when they occur, that applies
only under certain conditions, and for which theories can be developed and
tested. I will argue that discourse, most broadly defined here as whatever
public actors say to one another and the society at large in order to generate
and legitimate ideas about policy and polity, offers explanations different
from the “three institutionalisms,” that is, rational choice, historical, and sociological
institutionalism (Hall/Taylor 1996). But rather than constituting a
rival approach, mine is complementary to the three other approaches, by
building upon these as it seeks to lend insight into the dynamics of change.
Thus, it is focused on the ideas and actions which are not readily predicted
by rationalist reconstructions of interest-based behavior, that do not necessarily
follow from historical path dependencies, and/or do not always fit social
constructions of action. As such, it offers a framework within which to
theorize about how and when discursive interactions may enable actors to
overcome constraints that explanations in terms of interests, history, and/or
culture present as overwhelming impediments to action.
Moreover, this approach to discourse itself constitutes a form of “discursive”
institutionalism because it involves not only text (as much postmodern
discourse analysis assumes) but context – and context not only in terms of
culturally constructed ideas and values (the focus of constructivists) but also
in terms of “institutions,” understood in “new institutionalist” terms as socially
constituted, historically evolving, and/or interest-based rules of interaction
that represent incentives, opportunities, and/or constraints for individual
and collective actors. Institutions frame the discourse, defining repertoires
of more or less acceptable (and expectable) discursive interactions (to
paraphrase Scharpf’s definition of institutions – 1997: 42).
With regard to Scharpf’s actor-centered institutionalism in particular, discourse
can be seen as the missing factor likely to explain when his bounded
generalizations cannot. Thus, it comes in addition to the factors identified
by actor-centered institutionalism as essential to establishing actors’ problem-solving
capacity. These factors encompass the problems and policy
legacies that are the background conditions for change and the attributes of
the actors (including their perceptions, preferences, and capabilities) in institutional
interactions (consisting of actor constellations and modes of interaction
in institutional settings) that are the drivers of change. These are