Veblen analyzed this process on the basis of his concept of circular and cumulative causation. Schumpeter criticized Veblen’s work on the grounds

that it was non-theoretical and sociological. But there is a deeper reason for this, rooted in his view of causality. Unlike Veblen, he outlines a linear causality principle: ‘We speak of cause and effect only in the case of an irreversible causal relationship. . . . In contrast, we do not speak of cause and effect in those instances where we have a reciprocal relationship between two facts. We consider as a cause of an economic phenomenon only its explanatory principle (Erklärungsprinzip), that is to say, that aspect that allows us to comprehend the nature (Wesen) of the cause.’ (Schumpeter 1912/1926)

(Dopfer 2012, p. 149)

Then the aspect of routinization can be understood as a stream of habituation under the umbrella of a rule-based approach.