Post-Institutionalism. The Criticism of Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of “Alternative” Studies of Institutions

Abstract

The paper examines the phenomenon of "post-institutionalism" in relation to the philosophical and methodological issues surrounding the foundations of scientific research. While its proponents highlight several genuine problems in classical institutionalism that pertain to the complexities of modern institutions, the author has reservations regarding whether this metatheory can truly deliver on its promised breakthrough in research methodology. Understanding the complexity of an object requires abstracting its features and aspects, as well as employing antithesis as an artificial but reflective tool. However, the adoption of an "unsealed" approach makes it difficult to apply general logical and concrete scientific methods. The refusal to establish cause-and-effect relationships and laws, along with the substitution of concepts with metaphors, may result in a displacement of genuine research by purely descriptive activities and rhetoric. Studies that employ this particular conceptual framework (assemblage, bricolage, kluge) often fall short of advancing beyond interpretation or formulating testable theoretical propositions. Despite the increasing use of this vocabulary, doubts persist regarding the quantity and quality of studies based on real empirical evidence and the construction of successful predictive models. The author contends that the underlying reason for this lack of progress can be attributed to the influence of postmodern philosophy, which rejects classical scientific approaches in general, including the principles of classical institutionalism (such as rationality, optimality, efficiency of institutions, and their functional analysis).