Who cares about Reddit? Historical institutionalism and the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT Intellectual Property Act

ABSTRACT

In May 2011, the PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) was introduced to the United States Senate boasting 31 sponsors from both the Democratic and Republican Party. By January 2012 PIPA, along with counterpart in the House of Representatives known as the Stop Online Piracy Act was indefinitely shelved. Many have attributed this dramatic shift to the widespread backlash against the bills from online activists. The case thus suggests that the Internet has emerged as a powerful tool in allowing ordinary citizens to displace the entrenched power of special interests groups. However, given the role of activists and their rhetorical framing strategies in the defeat of the bills, the case also has theoretical implications for historical institutionalism. Namely, how can historical institutionalism, which favours institutions over agency, especially when explaining continuity, account for this? Can historical institutionalism account for agency, institutions, continuity and change in a unified way? This article responds in two ways. First, it argues that internet companies, not activists, were crucial in explaining the defeat of the bills. Second, it argues, it proposes a unified historical institutionalist approach to research, capable of explaining agency within institutions in institutional continuity and change.

KEYWORDS:

• Historical institutionalism
• Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
• PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)
• copyright
• Internet

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Madison Cartwright is a PhD candidate and Postgraduate Teaching Fellow in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney.