19
Second, the framework put forward in this paper does not constitute an alternative to
historical institutionalism, or even a fundamental challenge to Pierson’s argument about path
dependence (1996; 2000). Institutional processes tend to reproduce themselves over time, and drastic
change is rare, at least in well-established policy areas where large constituencies have emerged over
time. Yet, even in these areas, path-departing change remains possible. In some cases, a policy sector
may witness the emergence of path departing logics that are not the direct product of the ‘external
shocks’ Pierson sees as the main source of bold institutional change (2000). Scholars have shown
that ‘third order change’ can occur if a paradigm shift takes place (Hall, 1992), if the accumulation of
incremental reforms slowly alters the institutional logic of existing policies (Palier and Bonoli,
1999), and/or if power holders are successful in constructing the ‘need to reform’ that would
legitimize path departing reforms (Cox, 2001). In this paper, I only argue that ideational forces can
either favor significant policy change or reinforce existing institutional paths through the
reproduction of the dominant paradigm and the production of frames justifying existing policy
arrangements. More research is necessary to understand both institutional stability and institutional
transformation, and a discussion about ideational processes should contribute to that crucial task.
Yet, a more careful study of ideational processes can help students of social policy shed new
light on crucial empirical puzzles that traditional historical institutionalism is unable to solve alone.
For example, why are some issues becoming important for policymakers while others are not even
considered by them? The answer to this question lies in the study of the policy agenda and its change
over time. How can scholars explain the content of specific social legislation? Although the study of
institutional ‘veto points’ and policy legacies can sometimes answer this question, the discussion
above suggests that policy paradigms guide policymakers in a way that is not reducible to
institutional constraints. Shared economic and technical beliefs create constraints of their own in the
policymaking process. Finally, why do public views on peculiar policy issues change overtime,
Convention