How did neoinstitutionalism bring political institutions back into political science?

Neoinstitutionalism brought political institutions back into political science by addressing the limitations of the behavioralist movement, which had dominated the field from the 1960s by focusing almost exclusively on the actions of individual political actors. By the mid-1980s, scholars recognized that studying individual behavior without accounting for the institutional constraints—such as rules, norms, and structures—provided a skewed understanding of political reality.12

The approach, often termed "new institutionalism," did not abandon the empirical rigor gained from behavioralism but instead integrated it with a renewed interest in how institutions shape political life. Key figures like James G. March and Johan P. Olsen argued that institutions are essential for understanding the behavior of actors within them.12

Neoinstitutionalism revived institutional analysis through three primary streams:
* Rational choice institutionalism: Views institutions as systems of rules and incentives that shape the behavior of rational actors.12
* Sociological institutionalism: Emphasizes how institutional cultures, norms, and values construct identities and perceptions.12
* Historical institutionalism: Focuses on how past institutional arrangements and "path dependency" constrain future choices and political outcomes.12