Dr. Peters' presentation was on the concept of "new institutionalism."  He began his presentation with an explanation of how institutionalism was/is embedded in the history of political science and social science.  Before illustrating the details of what constitutes new institutionalism, he gave us a detailed definition of what old institutionalism is.
 　　The institutionalism prior to 1950s is referred to as old institutionalism.  It is formalistic, takes things at face value, legalistic, and holistic in nature.  Political institutions were seen as an entity.  However, there were two reactions to this notion of institutionalism.  The first was the behavioral revolution against institutions, where the dichotomy of institution and individual came into being, and there was a conscious choice for theory.  The second reaction was the rational choice theory, which is highly individualistic, and the fundamental actor is the individual.  New institutionalism can be regarded as the counter reformation through rational choice and behaviorism.
　　New institutionalism is new because it searches for sources of explanation.  The major types of new institutionalism include the following:

1) Normative: Institutions are defined through norms and values; individuals learn to behave within context of institutions.  The weakness of this theory is that it does not answer where institutions come from.  In terms of answering the question on how institutions change, normative theory gives two versions of change which are evolutionary (bottom-up) or notion of design (top-bottom).  Institutions interact through process of socialization, because as members change, institution reinforces and maintains old values.

2) Rational Choice: There are three versions to this model.  Principle agent model which conceptualizes institutions and members; game theoretic model which illustrates institutions as an arena for games with pay off matrix; and lastly the based on rules version that permit, perscribe, and postscribe rules, and is designed to constrain behavior.  This theory assumes that individuals are rational actors.  Institutions are means of dealing with problems of individual rationality.  Assuming people have preference change, there is the pay off matrix or rules that can be changed.  Thus, in this theory change is easy, whereas in normative theory change is difficult.

3) Historical Institutionalism: In this theory, institutions are formed historically, and are difficult to change.  This theory concerns ideas and policies, and sees institutions as structure.  The emphasis of this theory is on programs, policy, because it is thought that structure carries out ideas.  In this theory formation is crucial, change is difficult, and there is a punctuated equilibrium.

4) Empirical Institutionalism: This theory concerns the problem of whether institutions in fact matter.  For example, one of the questions empirical institutionalism deals with is presidential or parliamentary system and whether is a better system or not.
Along with these major types, there are a few minor types that he mentioned in his presentation.  These include sociological approach, international regime theory, and certain version of interest mediation, or network.

　　Is there really a single institutionalism?  Dr. Peters stated that there is something that holds institutionalism together, and there are the following common features.  One commonality is the fact structure matters.  The best way into political problem is through structure in institution.  Second commonality is the regularity of behavior, and constraints on individual choice.  Third commonality is the fact institutions are human creations.  The last commonality is the linkage with environment, that is to say political parties will act in similar way.
 　　However, there are two features that demonstrate the fact that there is no single institutionalism.  One is that all institutions constrain, but each constraint differently, thus it is hard to say there is a common theory.  Secondly, institutionalisms vary, are mutable, and changeable.  So then, is there a way out?  Dr. Peters' mentioned that his way out is the fact that the difference is useful.
　　 Some of the major issues that remain are the challenge of utilitary of change, the problem of measurement, and organizational institutions.  With respect to change, one has to examine in more detail the process of change through process of institutionalization.  In terms of the problem of measurement, to answer conceptual questions, one needs some kind of measurement.  Lastly, organizational institutions differ in analytical leverage, and the rules of the game are institutions, and the players as organizations.  These are issues that theorists on institutionalism are challenged with today.
 

 These are some of the questions given by the floor, and answers given by the presenter:

Q: To me, it seems as though institution is the only common feature, but what are some of the common features of institutionalism?  My second question is what point does neo-institutionalism offer or contribute to the discipline?

A: To answer the question of what is new about new constitutionalism is that it is interested in explanation, and theory, not merely just description.  The common feature is that new institutionalism is concerned about the importance of constrained individual behavior.

Q: Why categorize all these theories under institutionalism?

A: Fundamental point as to why they do this is because of the notion of institution is to provide stability and structure.  Institution is a coherent structure of norms and values, not random selections.