ABSTRACT
The theoretical and conceptual history of the three analytical frameworks for the study of unintended consequences revealed an interesting finding. Each of these three theories has undergone, sooner or later, through a phase of setback. While, in relation with the discussion of what is possible in this field, the review lead to two interrelated elements. First, in all three frameworks the possibilistic, counterfactual and indeterminacy angle seems to be currently present, yet there is rarely refers to what happened initially in this regard in sociology of unintended consequences. Second, the contemporary theories for the study of unintended consequence are possibilistic, yet this state of mind is rather implicit, not heralded as such. The concluding chapter interprets these elements and shows how they interconnect. Basically, it argues that the phases of setback in the three analytical frameworks delayed the formalization of sociology of unintended consequences. One of the manifestations of this state of quasi-formalization being that there is little pressure on the new contributions to the field to specify their theoretical and conceptual profile. This allows the possibilistic turn that comes from outside of sociology of unintended consequences to penetrate this field without this process being noticed. Should the field of unintended consequences have been more demanding towards the new contributions, the possibilistic turn would have probably become more explicit.
