Paradigms and Practice

Abstract

AbstractThomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm has long been a part of ordinary parlance in political science. Aside from its role in metatheoretical debate, scholars have enlisted the paradigm concept to explain policy change, particularly in the international political economy (IPE) literature. In this context, policy paradigms are defined primarily in ideational terms and with respect to a specific domain of policymaking. We argue that this stance overstates the ideational coherence of policymaking and runs a risk of reification. We re-evaluate the paradigm concept by drawing a link to the recent literature on norm change that emphasizes the importance of practice and process. This analysis highlights theoretical difficulties in using the paradigm concept, as the relation of ideas to practical logics elides the distinctness of paradigmatic frameworks. Without clear boundaries, paradigms lose much of their analytical purchase. While the paradigm concept initially proved useful in highlighting the role of ideas, it is time to recognize its limits in explaining stability and change in policymaking.