Page 40 - Governing Congo Basin Forests in a Changing Climate • Olufunso Somorin

Chapter 1
and Taylor, 1996; Greif and Laitin, 2004; Johnson, 2004). HI emphasizes not just the operation and development of institutions but also the path-dependencies and unintended consequences that result from such historical development (Pai and Sharma, 2005; Pierson, 2000). Rational-choice Institutionalism (RI) is assumed to be closer to neo-classical economics in its conception of institutions (North, 1990; Scharpf, 1997; O’Riordan and Jordan, 1999). RI assumes rational actors, who pursue their fixed preferences according to a ‘logic of calculation’ within purposefully designed institutional incentive structures (Hall and Taylor, 1996; Schmidt, 2010; Raitio, 2013). In contrast to HI and RI, sociological institutionalism (SI) relies on a broader definition of institutions. Within SI, institutions are defined as culturally constructed and as moral templates that provide the “frames and meaning” guiding human action (DiMaggio and Powel, 1991; Scott et al., 1994; Hall and Taylor, 1996; Schmidt, 2008). Individuals are thus viewed as socialized into particular roles and they internalize the norms associated with these. This is the way institutions affect behaviour. The rationality of an individual’s behaviour is therefore socially determined (Agyenim, 2011).
More recently, an increasing interest in ideational, perceptual and discursive factors of institutional change (Schmidt, 2008 & 2010; Arts and Buizer, 2009) has given rise to the fourth new institutionalism called discursive institutionalism. The three traditionally recognized variants of ‘new institutionalism’ – RI, HI and SI – have been argued to all see institutions more or less as given, static and constraining (Arts, 2012; Ratio, 2013). Scholars in these three new- institutionalisms have traditionally explained change as a result of some type of exogenous shocks (Schmidt, 2010). Discursive institutionalism shares with the other neo-institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions, but differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation, and in the ways in which it deals with change (Schmidt, 2010). Table 1-3 presents the differences among the four new institutionalisms.
In order to analyze the roles that different ideas, frames and discourses play in shaping policy debates, institutional arrangements and governance processes on adaptation and mitigation in the Congo Basin, a theoretical approach that gives attention to the role of actors, discourses and institutions in policymaking process is useful. This is what discursive institutionalism promises (Schmidt, 2008 & 2010) as opposed to the other three institutionalisms.
20