How do formal rules influence the actions of people in political institutions?

In neoinstitutionalism, formal rules—such as constitutions, laws, and treaties—are understood as essential frameworks that constrain and prescribe the interactions of political actors. These rules influence behavior by defining which actions are required, prohibited, or permitted, and by specifying sanctions for noncompliance.12

The influence of these rules is interpreted through different theoretical lenses:

• Rational Choice Institutionalism: Views rules as systems of incentives. Political actors adhere to these rules to maximize rewards or avoid sanctions, often calculating their actions based on how rules structure their career prospects or political leverage.13
• Normative Institutionalism: Suggests that actors follow rules because they perceive certain actions as appropriate for their specific roles. Adherence is driven by a sense of duty or professional standard rather than purely instrumental gain.1
• Sociological Institutionalism: Argues that rules are culturally constructed and often taken for granted. Actors follow them because they have become standard operating procedures or cognitive scripts, making alternative actions difficult to conceive.13
• Historical Institutionalism: Emphasizes that rules create path-dependent constraints. Past institutional choices limit the range of future actions available to political actors, shaping long-term political outcomes.13

Ultimately, while formal rules structure the political environment, they are not always strictly followed; actors may bend, ignore, or manipulate them while navigating power struggles and changing circumstances.2