4 VIVIEN A.SCHMIDT engaged in the bottom-up discursive interactions of grass-roots organizations, social movements,'mini-publics'(see Goodin and Dryzek,2006),local empowered participatory governance'(Fung and Wright,2003),and citizens whose voices are heard not only in opinion polls but also in votes-where actions speak even more loudly than words. The 'institutionalism'in discursive institutionalism suggests that this approach is not only about the communication of ideas or 'text'but also about the institutional context in which and through which ideas are communicated via discourse.The institutions of discursive institutionalism,however,are not the external rule-following structures of the three older institutionalisms that serve primarily as constraints on actors,whether as rationalist incentives,historical paths,or cultural frames.They are instead simultaneously constraining structures and enabling constructs of meaning, which are internal to 'sentient'(thinking and speaking)agents whose 'background ideational abilities'explain how they create and maintain institutions at the same time that their 'foreground discursive abilities'enable them to communicate critically about those institutions,to change (or maintain)them (Schmidt,2008).When dis- cursive institutionalists engage with any one of the older three neo-institutionalisms, therefore,they tend to use their results as background information,whether as the unproblematic basis for further inquiry -say,to elaborate on preference formation and to elucidate critical junctures-or as the problematic assumptions to be inves- tigated.With regard to institutional change,this would involve demonstrating how and when ideas in discursive interactions enable actors to overcome constraints which explanations in terms of interests,path dependence,and/or culture present as overwhelming impediments to action. Discursive institutionalism thus shares with the other neo-institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions,but it differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation,and in the ways in which it deals with change (see Table 1).Because the three older new institutionalisms'are well known,as are their drawbacks,this article provides only brief sketches of these here (for a fuller account,see Schmidt(2009a)).And because there is such a vast range of scholarly ideas about ideas and discourse (see Goodin and Tilly,2006:Pt IV),my purpose is not to review them all here.Rather,it is to show how DI fits against the other three new institutionalisms and,in doing so,to demonstrate that DI offers a framework within which to theorize about the dynamics of institutional change. The article begins with the turn to ideas first in RI,next in HI,and then in SI before exploring the interactive dimension of discourse.The article concludes with a consideration of the interrelationships among the four new institutionalisms. Rational choice institutionalism and the turn to ideas Rational choice institutionalism posits rational actors with fixed preferences who calculate strategically to maximize their preferences,and for whom institutionsengaged in the bottom-up discursive interactions of grass-roots organizations, social movements, ‘mini-publics’ (see Goodin and Dryzek, 2006), local ‘empowered participatory governance’ (Fung and Wright, 2003), and citizens whose voices are heard not only in opinion polls but also in votes – where actions speak even more loudly than words. The ‘institutionalism’ in discursive institutionalism suggests that this approach is not only about the communication of ideas or ‘text’ but also about the institutional context in which and through which ideas are communicated via discourse. The institutions of discursive institutionalism, however, are not the external rule-following structures of the three older institutionalisms that serve primarily as constraints on actors, whether as rationalist incentives, historical paths, or cultural frames. They are instead simultaneously constraining structures and enabling constructs of meaning, which are internal to ‘sentient’ (thinking and speaking) agents whose ‘background ideational abilities’ explain how they create and maintain institutions at the same time that their ‘foreground discursive abilities’ enable them to communicate critically about those institutions, to change (or maintain) them (Schmidt, 2008). When dis￾cursive institutionalists engage with any one of the older three neo-institutionalisms, therefore, they tend to use their results as background information, whether as the unproblematic basis for further inquiry – say, to elaborate on preference formation and to elucidate critical junctures – or as the problematic assumptions to be inves￾tigated. With regard to institutional change, this would involve demonstrating how and when ideas in discursive interactions enable actors to overcome constraints which explanations in terms of interests, path dependence, and/or culture present as overwhelming impediments to action. Discursive institutionalism thus shares with the other neo-institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions, but it differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation, and in the ways in which it deals with change (see Table 1). Because the three older ‘new institutionalisms’ are well known, as are their drawbacks, this article provides only brief sketches of these here (for a fuller account, see Schmidt (2009a)). And because there is such a vast range of scholarly ideas about ideas and discourse (see Goodin and Tilly, 2006: Pt IV), my purpose is not to review them all here. Rather, it is to show how DI fits against the other three new institutionalisms and, in doing so, to demonstrate that DI offers a framework within which to theorize about the dynamics of institutional change. The article begins with the turn to ideas first in RI, next in HI, and then in SI before exploring the interactive dimension of discourse. The article concludes with a consideration of the interrelationships among the four new institutionalisms. Rational choice institutionalism and the turn to ideas Rational choice institutionalism posits rational actors with fixed preferences who calculate strategically to maximize their preferences, and for whom institutions 4 VIVIEN A . SCHMIDT