Why are institutional rules often contested in rational choice institutionalism?

In rational choice institutionalism, institutional rules are often contested because they function as constraints that shape the strategic opportunities available to rational actors. Because these actors are assumed to be opportunistic and driven by stable, individual preferences, they view institutions as frameworks that determine the costs and benefits of their actions.12

Contestation arises primarily because institutions define the rules of the game, which in turn dictate the distribution of power and the likelihood of achieving specific outcomes. When political actors perceive that existing rules negatively affect their ability to attain their goals or maximize their welfare, they are incentivized to challenge or seek to change those rules.23

Furthermore, because institutional change is often linked to shifting power relations, the process of rule adaptation is frequently viewed as a "redeployment of power resources". Consequently, when unintended consequences occur or when the legitimacy of a system is questioned, actors engage in institutional battles to reshape the framework in a way that better aligns with their interests. In this view, rules are not static; they are dynamic, humanly devised contracts that remain subject to ongoing negotiation and conflict as actors pursue their strategic objectives.2