Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis

by Paul Pierson

This groundbreaking book represents the most systematic examination to date of the often-invoked but rarely examined declaration that "history matters." Most contemporary social scientists unconsciously take a "snapshot" view of the social world. Yet the meaning of social events or processes is frequently distorted when they are ripped from their temporal context. Paul Pierson argues that placing politics in time--constructing "moving pictures" rather than snapshots--can vastly enrich our understanding of complex social dynamics, and greatly improve the theories and methods that we use to explain them.



Politics in Time opens a new window on the temporal aspects of the social world. It explores a range of important features and implications of evolving social the variety of processes that unfold over significant periods of time, the circumstances under which such different processes are likely to occur, and above all, the significance of these temporal dimensions of social life for our understanding of important political and social outcomes. Ranging widely across the social sciences, Pierson's analysis reveals the high price social science pays when it becomes ahistorical. And it provides a wealth of ideas for restoring our sense of historical process. By placing politics back in time, Pierson's book is destined to have a resounding and enduring impact on the work of scholars and students in fields from political science, history, and sociology to economics and policy analysis.

Genres: History, Political Science, Politics, Nonfiction, Social Science, Academic

208 pages, Paperback

First published August 9, 2004

About the author

Paul Pierson is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where he holds the Avice Saint Chair in Public Policy. Before taking this position in 2004, he was professor of government at Harvard University, where he taught from 1988 to 2004.

Pierson's first book, Dismantling the Welfare State? (1994), won the American Political Science Association's Kammerer Prize for the best book published on American national politics and policy in 1994. He has been the recipient of a number of prestigious fellowships, among them a Guggenheim Fellowship, a Jean Monnet Fellowship at the European University Institute in Florence, and a Russell Sage Foundation Fellowship.

Professor Pierson is an Affiliated Scholar at the Center for American Progress, where his work concentrates on comparative public policy, political economy, and the welfare state. His writing has appeared in Politics and Society, Comparative Political Studies, and Governance. Pierson is currently working on two books on long-term changes in the American political system. He lives in Berkeley, California.

Reviews

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Politics and sociology arguably need further understanding and research made possible by the consideration of time’s influence.

[Marc Sabatier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although the title could suggest a rather dry and heavy book on theory, this was a surprisingly engaging and accessible book.

Pierson's point is that politics must be placed in time. He characterises the current (2004) use of history in the social sciences as: 1) the examination of the past to understand present outcomes, 2) history as the hunt for illustrative material, where we can find cases that no longer materialize (e.g. of world wars), 3) history as the hunt for more cases. Pierson's point is that there that this empirical approach to history fails to appreciate how to theorize on how social life unfolds over time.

An interesting theme in the book is the active engagement with "neo-classical" economics, that may represent an approach that is most clearly detached from time. Pierson's discussion is quite constructive*, where he argues that the basic assumptions of economics work rather well in markets (people want more, not less, they have information etc.). In politics, however, Pierson argues that goals are less clearly defined, and the political actions of individuals are heavily dependent of their surroundings (contrary to atomistic individuals in markets). Time also matters more in politics due to its winner-take-all nature, where there is a large difference in e.g. winning the first election (and getting to set the rules) or losing it by a vote. This is again contrary to markets, that is more of a plus-sum game where competition can lead to more goods, politics is inherently a zero-sum game over power where being first matters a lot.

The book pits "rational choice" vs. "historical institutionalism", which probably were the two dominating "camps" in the early social science 2000's. It's interesting to think about how the book speaks to social science today, that has undergone an empirical revolution, with an increased attention to causal inference. Pierson's warning was that social science was becoming to obsessed with events that happen in very short spaces of time, instead of looking at "longue durée" forces driving social change. One the one hand, that the empirical turn will amplify this tendency, and simply use history as cases for causal effects. On the other hand, perhaps new, long haul data will finally give the necessary appreciation of history to place history in time.

[Nadia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pierson critiqued the rationalist and actor-centred functionalist accounts of institutional change for their over-emphasis on the “institutional choice”. Pierson prefers the term institutional "development" instead of "change" as he believes most of institutional changes are in fact slow-moving processes with historically-rooted causes. This book focusses on “social mechanisms that have a strong temporal dimension”.
I liked his analogy between research and cooking, where good cooking = perfect ingredients [variables] + perfectly measures [methods]. The sequence, pace and manner of combining ingredients [factors] matter. For some modern social scientist, at Pierson’s dismay, it makes no difference the manner [how], the order and for how long ingredients [factors] are combined. For him “variables” are often distorted “when ripped from their temporal context”
In this book, Pierson puts forward theoretical arguments around four major themes: path dependence, timing and sequence, distinctiveness of “slow-moving” processes […] and problems of institutional origins and change.

[Patrick F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book for anyone interested in becoming a political scientists, sociologist, or institutional historian. Tough book to get through if one isn't acclimated to think in terms such as path dependency, temporality, sequence, institutional development, and so forth. The great thing that Pierson does though is provide countless examples, counterexamples; the bibliography is amazing for those who want to read books that have applied much of these terms.

[Arthursaurus_lentils · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most well written books in political science that I've read so far.

Putting the content aside, Pierson manages to make his book engaging despite the strong academic nature of it.

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an interesting book I first read for Introduction to Policy History, and reread for Historical Methods. Again a somewhat boring history book, but important to the field. Pierson, a political scientist, analyzes historical institutionalism in relation to his field. Interestingly, this is a relatively new field - developed in early 20th century. This is a must read for anyone interested in Activity Theory or institutional history.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

As other reviewers have noted, this book is indeed boring and repetitive. But on the other hand, it is short relatively short.

Pierson wants to us to think harder about the role of historical development in our political institutions. As Faulkner said, the past isn't dead. It isn't even past.

I'm in agreement with his point, but Politics in Time is a hard slog. Settle in for some reading that is going to take sustained effort.

[Tom Robbins · Rating 1 out of 5]

A very boring read. Not enough examples and seems to over-elaborate the same concept over and over again.

[Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for those interested in historical institutionalist approaches to Political Science. Lots of the key themes and ideas are explained very well here.