Stability and change: the last dualism?

Abstract

Stability and change are key issues for policy analysts, but the literature on the relationship between the two is limited in both senses of the term. This article examines that literature, placing in it firmly against discussions about how to conceptualize time and arguing that the relationship between stability and change is best viewed as a duality, not a dualism. As such, the article strongly critiques the concept of punctuated evolution and defends a historical institutionalist position, against a constructivist institutionalist one.

Keywords:

• stability
• change
• historical institutionalism

Notes

1. It is also the view of Bevir and Rhodes (2003, 2006).

2. However, he acknowledges ‘These categories are rather artificial, and are not mutually exclusive. I use them here as “sorting” devices for a range of ideas about social transition and stability’ (Tonkiss 1994, p. 37).

3. The idea of a paradigm shift used by Hay derives from Peter Hall (1993). See also Blyth (2002a), Hall (1993), Hay (2002).

4. See Blythe (2002b) for an even stronger version of the argument implicit in Hay's work. He contends that structures and/or institutions account for stability, while the actions of agents or the role of ideas explain change.

5. In fact, this is a key theme among a growing number of political scientists see, as just two examples, Blythe (1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2003) and Berman (1998).

6. Equally, I think it is possible to argue that there is continuity in economic policy throughout the post-war period to the extent that the defense of sterling remained the key aim, perhaps until ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992.