Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo-Institutionalism
Article first published online: 8 DEC 2004
Volume 18, Issue 1, pages 35–52, January 2005
How to Cite
GOLDMANN, K. (2005), Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo-Institutionalism. Governance, 18: 35–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00265.x
- Issue published online: 8 DEC 2004
- Article first published online: 8 DEC 2004
Skeptical questions may be raised about the neo-institutionalist approach of James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, in which a “logic of expected consequences” is set against a “logic of appropriateness”: (1) it is difficult to determine what kind of constructs the so-called logics are—whether they are to be seen as perspectives, theories, or ideal types; (2) the logics, far from being mutually excluding, overlap very considerably; (3) analytical utility is debatable not only in the case of the “logic of expected consequences” but also when it is a matter of the “logic of appropriateness”; (4) the normative virtue of substituting a “logic of appropriateness” for a “logic of expected consequences” is less obvious than March and Olsen's readers may be led to think. It is tempting to conclude that March and Olsen’s approach has proven compelling because of its consequences for the scholarly community rather than by virtue of its analytical appropriateness.