7
Institutionalization According to Huntington
Huntington (1965) proposes a model for evaluating the level of institutionalization of a
political system. This framework was found useful for understanding the institutionalization of
the US House of Representatives (Polsby 1968), and the model is broad enough to apply to many
types of institutionalization. Huntington’s theory also shares some similarities with the
Weber/Michels model.
Institutionalization, according to Huntington, is one important measure of the strength of
a political organization. The other is the “scope of support” (Huntington 1965, 394). The level
of institutionalization can be defined by four variables: adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and
coherence. The higher the degree of these four characteristics, the higher the level of
institutionalization there is.
The adaptability of an organization is dependent on its age and the amount of
challenge(s) it has endured. Age can be measured in three ways. First, chronologically, the
older an organization is the higher the level of institutionalization. Second, generationally, the
more an organization has successfully replaced its leadership, the higher the level of
institutionalization. And third, functionally, the more an organization has adapted its functions
to changes in the environment, the higher the level of institutionalization.
The complexity of an organization can be measured by the number, variety and
functionality of subunits. The more complex a political system is, the more stable. Thus,
complexity is a characteristic of high institutionalization.
Autonomy means that a political system is “insulated from the impact of non-political
groups and procedures” (Huntington 1965, 401). There are many types of social groups that may
try to influence a political system. An autonomous political system will be able to shield itself
Convention