Social science conflates two distinct theories under the single label path dependence

Evidence

I contend that there are two main branches of theories in the social science literature that are most commonly named path dependence. One explains how specific outcomes occur as a result of specific sequences of events, it is within these theories that I argue we should search for an accepted definition of path dependence. The other branch of theories, explains how specific institutional systems are resilient over time as a result of the positive feedback they generate, and hence the idea of a specific path, and with it a progression from stage to stage, is less salient, and we should refrain from terming them path dependence. A third, much more disturbing, recent development has been to equate path dependence with any theory that uses past decisions as a static explanation for later outcomes. … To elucidate why this is not the case, a brief overview of these approaches and how they differ from path dependence is presented as well. — Georg Schreyögg and Jörg Sydow, The Hidden Dynamics of Path Dependence, 99

Categorization

• DEFINE: Draws the line between outcome-from-sequence theories and resilience-from-feedback theories.
• SEED: Essay angle: how a borrowed term gets hollowed out as it spreads across disciplines until it names nothing in particular.