Publication Date
2026
Description
This article situates Radical Institutionalism within the broader tradition of Original Institutionalism, responding to Geoffrey Hodgson’s critique that the “radical” epithet is nothing more than political posturing. Rather than, mere political posturing, Radical Institutionalism’s distinctiveness lies in its approach to power which centralizes hegemonic forces in our understanding of social domination. The argument proceeds by first tracing the historical evolution of Original Institutionalism, identifying Radical Institutionalism as a corrective to earlier theoretical limitations. It then systematically differentiates Radical Institutionalism from both earlier Original Institutionalist and Marxist approaches, emphasizing the role of both cultural and material factors in processes of social domination. Using Steven Lukes’ tripartite typology of power, the article analytically grounds the “radical” epithet in the Radical Institutionalists approach to power, centralizing hegemonic forces in understanding process of domination, which becomes the basis for the formation of a normative agenda. The article concludes by presenting a revitalized research agenda for Radical Institutionalists, and Original Institutionalism more broadly, advocating a decolonial, intersectional, and materially grounded approach to analyzing and addressing today’s poly-crisis. Ultimately, this reframing assures its analytical value is realized and advanced, no longer dismissible as political posturing, but recognized as a key tool for social critique and transformation.
Type
Working Paper(unpublished)
Department
Economics
Language
eng