ABSTRACT
Using illustrative evidence from research on comparative federalism, it suggests that political orders are not necessarily “equilibrated”, uncontested and path-dependent entities. Rather, they are assumed to consist of multiple “layers” that have different historical origins. As a consequence, the ideational foundations of political orders – or meaning constellations – vary in terms of their internal coherence. While some meaning constellations have successfully resolved internal contradictions over time, others are marked through ongoing tensions and frictions. Second, this contribution argues that meaning constellations are inherently tied to institutional layers. Institutions establish authority relationships and, therefore, depend on ideas that furnish them with sense and legitimacy. As such, meaning constellations can either stabilize institutions as long as ideas and institutions display some degree of complementarity, or open up opportunities to de-construct the legitimacy of institutionalized authority relationships. Finally, as the relationship between meaning constellations and institutions is reciprocal, institutional architectures also shape the dynamic evolutions of meaning constellations. Institutional characteristics, most notably the degree of institutional coupling, variously affects continuity and change within and of meaning constellations.
