Download Lecture 5

北京师范大学
教育研究方法讲座系列
Lecture 5
Approach to Comparative-Historical Method (2):
New Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z As Mattei Dogan underlines, comparative method is
essential in studies of social phenomena, which are
"contextual and relativistic" in their economic,
political social, and cultural environment. (Dogan,
2006; p.309)
z One of these contexts, in which all social phenomena
are embedded, is its institutional context. This
embeddedness can best be illustrated in Berger and
Luckmann's thesis on the "world-openness" of human
existence.
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z Berger and Luckmann (1966) make the distinction
between the "open-world" existence of human beings
and the "closed-world" existence of non human
animals.
y "All non-human animals, as species and as individuals, live
in closed worlds whose structures are predetermined by the
biological equipment of the several animal species.” (1966,
p.65) In other words, every non-human species has "largely
fixed relationship to its environment." (p.65)
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z Berger and Luckmann (1966) …
y "By contrast, man's relationship to his environment is
characterized by world-openness. Not only has man
succeeded in establishing himself over the greater part of
the earth's surface, his relationship to the surrounding
environment is everywhere very imperfectly structured by
his own biological constitution." (p.65)
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z The "double environmental interrelationship" in
human existence
y Berger and Luckmann contend that the constitution of the
"world openness" of human existence is contributed by the
fact that human beings are developing and living in an
environment, which “is both natural and human one." (p.
66) That is, human being’s existence "not only interrelates
with a particular natural environment, but with a specific
cultural and social order." And it is exactly this "double
environmental interrelationship", which contributes to
human’s “immense plasticity in its response to the
environment force at work on it.” (p.66)
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z The "double environmental interrelationship" …
y “One may say that the biological intrinsic world-openness
of human existence is always, and indeed must be,
transformed by social order into a relative worldcloseness.” (p.69) Berger and Luckmann underline that "to
understanding the causes for … the emergence,
maintenance and transmission of a social order one must
undertake an analysis that eventuates in a theory of
institutionalization." .
Social Institutions as Contextuality in
Comparative Studies
z In recent decades, the new institutionalist movement
in different disciplines of the social sciences have
developed a rich arsenal of conceptual instruments
and analytical tools which are readily available for
researchers to use as “operational concepts” and
“mediating devices” in comparative-historical
enquires.
Academic Origins of
New Institutionalism
z One of initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the
reaction to prevailing perspectives in political sciences in the
1960s. One is the “old institutionalism”, which focuses their
studies of the political institutions on formal-legal structure of
the government, e.g. the legislative, executive and juridical
structures. The other is the political behavior approach, which
applies the behaviorism in psychology and concentrate o
analyzing the political behaviors of individual political actors,
such as voters. In reaction to them, new institutionalism focuses
on the political meanings, symbols and cultures that constitute
the regularity and durability underwriting the political
institution and its structures.
Academic Origins of
New Institutionalism
z Another initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the
reaction to the methodological individualism found in
economics, which manifest in theories of rational choice and
preference. In reaction to these, new institutionalism put its
emphasis on meanings and cultures, i.e. the logic of
appropriateness, underlying human behaviors and choice.
Hence, the new institutionalism reinstates the methodological
collectivism (or more specifically methodological
institutionalism) in economics by accounting for economic
actions with social units such as firms, classes, status groups,
ethnic groups, nation, the commons, and so on rather than
individuals’ preferences and choices.
Ronald Coase
Nobel Lareate in
Economic Science in 1991
Douglas North
Nobel Lareate in
Economic Science in 1993
Oliver E. Williamson & Elinor Ostrom
Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 2009
Academic Origins of
New Institutionalism
z In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly in
reaction to the legal-rational system model prevailing in
organization studies and the structural-functionalism
dominating the marco-sociological studies, such as development
studies. Based on the social phenomenological perspective made
popular by Berger and Luckmann in their work The Social
Construction of Reality (1967), new institutionalists emphasize
the informal structure of organization and the subjective
elements underlying patterned actions and enduring practices.
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
Douglass C. North stipulates that “institutions are
rules of the game in a society or more formally, are
the humanly devised constraint that shape human
interaction. In consequence they structure incentives
in human exchange, whether political, social or
economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
James March and Johan Olsen’s conception:
“An institution is a relatively enduring collection of
rules and organized practices, embedded in structures
of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant
in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively
resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and
expectations of individuals and changing external
circumstances.” (March and Olsen, 2006, p.1)
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
James March and Johan Olsen’s conception:
According, in institutions
“There are constitutive rules and practices prescribing
appropriate behavior for specific actors in specific situations.
There are structures of meaning, embedded in identities and
belongings: common purposes and accounts that give
direction and meaning to behavior, and explain, justify and
legitimate behavioral codes.
There are structures of resources that create capabilities for
action.” (ibid)
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
John Campbell’s conception:
“Institutions …consist of formal and informal rules, monitoring
and enforcing mechanisms, and systems of meaning that define
the context within which individuals, corporations, labor unions,
nation-states and other organizations operate and interact with
each other. Institutions are settlements born from struggle and
bargaining. They reflect the resources and power of those who
made them and, in turn, affect the distribution of resources and
power in society. Once created, institutions are powerful external
forces that help determine how people make sense of their world
and act in it. They channel and regulate conflict and thus ensure
stability in society.” (Campbell, 2004, p. 1)
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
Richard Scott’s conception
“Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and
regulative structures and activities that provide stability
and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are
transported by various carries ── cultures, structures,
and routines── and they operate at multiple levels of
jurisdiction.” (Scott, 1995, p.33)
Concept of Institution:
The Contextual Embeddedness
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann indicate that
“institutionalization occurs whenever there is a
reciprocal typiifcation of habitualized actions by types of
actors. Put differently, any such typification is an
institution. What must be stressed is the reciprocity of
institutional typifications and the typicality of not only
the actions but the actors in institution. The typifications
of habitualized actions that constitute institutions are
always shared ones. They are available to all members of
the particular social group in question, and the
institution itself typifies individual actors as well as
individual actions.” (1966, p. 72)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor have distinguished three
perspectives in new institutionalism in political science:
Historical Institutionalism:
This perspective tends to see enduring human behavior-patterns as
outcomes evolve from specific historical and socio-economic contexts.
Hence “historical institutionalists tend to view have a view of
institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and
unintended consequences.” (P. 938)
“Historical institutionalists define institution the formal or informal
procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the
organizational structure of the polity or political economy. They can
range from the rules of a conventional order or the standard operating
procedures of a bureaucracy to the conventional governing trade union
behaviour or bank-firm relations.” (P. 938)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Historical Institutionalism: …
“In this perspective, the individual is seen as an entity deeply
embedded in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts
and routines, which provide the filters for interpretation, of both the
situation and oneself, out of which a course of action is constructed.
Not only do institutions provide strategically-useful information,
they also affect the very identities, self-images and preferences of
the actions.” (p. 939)\
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Rational-choice institutionalism:
“The rational choice institutionalists in political science drew fruitful
analytical tools from the ‘new economics of organization’, which
emphasizes the importance of property rights, rent-seeking, and
transactions costs, to the operation and development of institutions.
Especially influential was Willamson’s argument that the particular
organizational form can be explained as the result of an effort to
reduce the transaction cost of undertaking the same activity without
such as institutions.” (P. 943)
Rational-choice institutionalists “posit that the relevant actors have a
fixed set of preferences or tastes, …behave entirely instrumentally so
to maximize the attainment of these preferences and do so in a highly
strategic manner that presumes extensive calculation.” (Pp. 944-945)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Rational-choice institutionalism:…
“Rational-choice institutionalist tend to see politics as a series of
collective action dilemmas. The latter can be defined as instances
when individuals acting to maximizing the attainment of their own
preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively
suboptimal. …Typically, what prevents the actors from taking a
collectively-superior course of action is absence of institutional
arrangements that would guarantee complementary behaviour by
others. Classic examples includes the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ and the
‘tragedy of the commons’ and the political situations present a
varieties of such problems.” (P. 945)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Sociological institutionalism:
"The sociological institutionalists tend to define institutions …not just
formal rules, procedures or norms, but the symbol systems, cognitive
scripts, and moral templates that provide the 'frames of meaning'
guiding human action." (p. 948) Accordingly, they "argue that many
of the institutional forms and procedures used by organizations were
not adopted simply because they were most efficient for the tasks at
hand. …Instead, they argued that many forms and procedures should
be seen as culturally-specific practices, akin to the myths and
ceremonies derived by many societies." (p. 947)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Sociological institutionalism: …
To some sociologists of new institutionalism, individual actions are
construed as role performances or prescriptive norms of behavior
attached in particular institutional contexts. "In this view, individuals
who have been socialized into particular institutional roles internalize
the norms associated with these roles, and in this way institutions are
said to affect behaviour." (P. 948) Furthermore, some sociological
institutionalists "emphasize the way in which institutions influence
behaviour by providing the cognitive scripts, categories and models
that are indispensable for action, not least because without them the
world and the behaviour of others cannot be interpreted. Institutions
influence behaviour not simply by specifying what one should do but
also by specifying what one can imagine oneself in a given context."
(p. 948)
The Perspectives in
New Institutionalism
Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
Sociological institutionalism: …
One of the distinctive features of the sociological institutionalism is
the explanation it offered for the endurance of institutional practices.
Instead of accounting them for rational-choices out of game situations
or traditional "dependent paths" inherited from the past, sociologists
in new institutionalism strive to reveal the legitimate bases from which
reciprocal practices among social actors derived and consensual
arrangements among reasonable agents endure.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Categorization of orders: March and Olsen account for
the enduring patterns of human practices by signifying
the following institutional orders. (March and Olsen,
1984)
Symbolic orders: They refer to the patterns and ordering of
productions, circulations and consumptions of meanings,
ideas, concepts, symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories and
drama in social life.
Normative orders: They refer to the organizations and
practices of rights, duties, obligations, roles, rules, norms and
regulations in social life. operates.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Categorization of orders: March and Olsen…
Endogenous orders: They signify the internal mechanism and
processes, which affect things like the power distribution,
distribution, the distribution of preferences, or the
management of control” within an institutions.
Historical orders: They refer to the essential concept of “the
efficiency of historical processes” in new institutionalism. By
efficiency of historical efficiency, it refers to the way in which
history moves quickly and inexorably to a unique outcome,
normally in some sense an optimum.” (March and Olsen,
1984, p. 743) Accordingly, the internal order of an institution
will be constrained by the particular period in history and its
condition of optimum within which the institution operates.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The conception of institutional elements: Richard Scott
suggests that “institution are viewed as made up of three
component elements” (1994, p.56) or as he later called
three pillars (1995)
The regulative pillar: The effect or order of institutions is
accounted for by ways of emphasizing the prominence of explicit
regulative processes prevailing in institutions. They consist of
“rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities” undertaken in
institutions. Hence, the institutional effects, i.e. the institutional
order, depend on “the capacity to establish rules, inspect or review
others’ conformity to them, and as necessary, manipulate sanctions
──rewards or punishments── in an attempt to influence future
behavior.” (Scotts, 1995, p. 35)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The conception of institutional elements: …
The normative pillar: Theorists emphasize the normative
pillar in accounting for institutional effects by focusing on
the “prescriptive, evaluative, and obligatory dimensions” of
social life. “Normative systems include both values and
norms. Values are conceptions of the preferred or the
desirable together with the construction of the standards to
which existing structures or behavior can be compared and
assessed. Norms specify how things should be done; they
define legitimate means to pursue value ends.” (p. 37)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The conception of institutional elements: …
The cognitive pillar: The institutional effects can also be
accounted for by emphasizing cognitive elements in
institutions, which refer to “the rules that constitute the
nature of reality and the frames through which meaning is
made.” (p. 40) Constitutive rules have been identified as the
foremost cognitive elements in this perspective. By
constitutive rules, it refers “rules involve the creation of
categories and the construction of typifications: processes by
which ‘concrete and subjectively unique experiences… are
ongoingly subsumed under general orders of meaning that
are both objectively and subjectively real.” (p.41)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis: “Institutional
arrangements (i.e. elements) can be found at a variety
of levels in social system – in societies, in
organizational fields, in individual organizations, and
in primary and small groups” (Rowan & Miskel, 1999,
p. 359; Scott, 1995, p. 55-60)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis: …
System level – The conception of Institutional environment
Institutional environment: “Institutional environments are, by
definition, those characterized by the elaboration of rules and
requirements to which individual organizations must conform if they
are to receive support and legitimacy” (Scott and Meyer, 1991, p.123)
Two of the most prominent institutional environments in modern
society are the nation-state and market, both of which share one of the
most salient features of modernity, namely, rationality.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis:
Sector level – The conception of organizational fields
Organizational field: It refers to “a community of organizations that
partakes of a common meanings system and whose participants
interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with
actors outside of the field.” Hence, “fields are defined in terms of
shared cognitive or normative frameworks or a common regulative
system.” (Scott, 1995, p. 56)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis:
Sector level – The conception of organizational fields
Isomorphism: Organizations in an a organization field tends to become
homogenous in terms of cognitive, normative and regulative aspects of
the organizations. The concept best captures this process is
isomorphism. “Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one
unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of
environmental conditions.
Two of the forces at work in modern society are efficiency and
legitimacy. The former is more likely to be related to the
competitiveness of the market, while the latter to the state.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis:
Organization level – The formal structure of the organization
To comply with the isomorphic constraints of the organizational field
and institutional environment, individual organizations have to
structure themselves in regulative, normative and cognitive aspects to
meet with the institutional elements of the filed and environment.
As a result, two of the ideal types of formal structure of the
organizations have constituted in modern society, the firm and the
bureaucracy of government agencies.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis:
Human interaction level – “reciprocal typifications and
interpretations of habitualized actions”
Members of an individual organization, organizational field, or
institutional environment will share many commonalities in meanings,
interpretations, and typifications, i.e. common cognitive elements.
They will institutionalize common languages, interacting and
communicating patterns, and routines in practices.
They will also institute common “logic of appropriateness and
normative elements.
Their interactions are also subjected to the regulative elements of the
institution in which they find themselves.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
Levels of institutional analysis:
Individual level - Internalization and Identity
In reaction to rational choice theory, new institutionalism perceives
individuals not simply as actors governed by rational calculus of
preferences and self-interest, i.e. logic of consequences (James, 1994,
p.3) but as agent having internalized set of norms, values and rules and
their agency is governed by the logic of appropriateness of particular
institutional settings.
“When individuals and organizations fulfill identities, they follow rules
or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which
they find themselves. Neither preference as they are normally
conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into
the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism: New Institutionalism at
organizational level
Conception of isomorphism: New institutionalists stipulate
that organizations in modern rational institutional
environment and/or organizational field tend to develop
similar structures, procedures and practices (organizational
elements in Meyer & Rowan's terminology). They term this
process of homogenization of organization isomorphism.
"Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit
in a population to resemble other units that face the same set
of environmental conditions." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991,
p.66)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism …
Distinction between competitive and institutional isomorphism:
DiMaggio & Powell (1991) and Meyer & Rowan (1991) have
made similar distinctions between competitive and institutional
isomorphism.
By competitive isomorphism, it refers to the process of homogenization
of organizations taken place in "those field which free and open
competition exists." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66) Organizations in
these fields usually possess "clearly defined technologies to produce
outputs" and therefore those "outputs can be easily evaluated" (Meyer
& Rowan, 1991, p. 54) As a result, development of common
organizational elements, i.e. isomorphism, can be attained through
market competition, competitive niche, standardized output performance
and organizational efficiency. (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 66)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism…
Distinction between competitive and institutional isomorphism:
By institutional isomorphism, it refers to the process of
homogenization of organizations invoked in the context of "collective
organized society" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) in which
institutional environment of modern bureaucratic states have replaced
market mechanism to act as institutional rules of the field. As a result,
in institutional organizations, the development of common
organizational elements can not be attain by market competition and
internal efficiency, instead "they incorporate elements which are
legitimated externally" and "they employ external or ceremonial
assessment criteria to define the value of structural elements." (Meyer
& Rowan, 1991, p. 49)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism…
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
DiMaggio & Powell identify three mechanism through
which institutional isomorphism are achieved, maintained or
changed. The thesis can be taken as analysis apparatus to
study how schools, as institutional organization, adopt to
education policy changes.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism…
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Coercive isomorphism: "Coercive isomorphism results from both
formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other
organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural
expectations in the society within which organizations function.
Such pressures may be felt as force, as persuasion, or as invitations
to join in collusion." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 67)
Organizational restructures undertaken by HK schools in response
to Quality-Assurance Inspection, School Self Evaluation, External
School Review, Senior-Secondary Curriculum reform, Schoolbased Management and Incorporated Management Committee, etc.
may be analyze in light of the concept of coercive isomorphism.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism…
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Mimetic isomorphism: Apart from coercive authority, "uncertainty is
also a powerful force that encourages imitation. When organizational
technologies are poorly understood, when goals are ambiguous, or
when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may
model themselves on other organization." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991,
p. 69)
Confronted by collective puzzlement in policy implementation, such as
those initiated by Senior-Secondary curriculum reform or more
specifically the teaching of Liberal Studies, or School-Self Evaluation,
most HK schools could only imitate, model or simply copy from other
schools.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of isomorphism…
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Normative isomorphism: Instead of compliance with modern
institutional environments of competitive market or bureaucraticrational state, isomorphism may take the form of professionalization.
Organizations and their operations, which are predominately identified
with a profession, such as hospitals with doctors and schools with
teachers, can incorporate cognitive, normative and regulative bases of
that profession into their organizations and apply them as criteria in
assessing the performance as well and legitimation bases of their
organization.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of social capital: New institutionalism at
interpersonal level:
According to Berger and Luckmann, institution embeds in individuals and
groups of individuals in the form of "reciprocal typifications" and
"habitualized actions." In recent years sociologists have initiated concepts
such as social network and social capital to depict the enduring
interpersonal relationship in institutional context. For example Lin
conceptualizes that "social capital as …is rooted in social network and
social relations, and must be measured relative to its roots. Therefore
social capital can be defined as resources embedded in a social structure
which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action." (Lin, 2001, p.12)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of social capital:
Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four sources
from which enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e. social
capitals, are constituted.
Value introjection: It refers to "moral character" and "value
imperatives" individuals learned in the process of socialization. (Portes
and Sensenbrenner, 1998, p. 129) This resource is basically in
congruent with Beger and Luckmann's conception of internalization in
the process of institutionalization at individual level.
Reciprocity transactions: It "consists of an accumulation of 'chits'
earned through previous good deeds to others, backed by the norm of
reciprocity." In comparison with value introjection, in this type of
social capital "individuals are not expected to behave according to a
higher group morality but rather to pure selfish end." (p. 130)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of social capital:
Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four sources from
which enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e. social capitals, are
constituted.
Bounded solidarity: It refers to social capitals invoke from
"situational circumstances leading to the emergence of principled
group-orientated behavior. …Its classic sources are best
exemplified by Marx and Engels's analysis of the rise of proletarian
consciousness and the transformation of workers into class for
themselves." (p. 130)
This type of collective sentiments grown out of common (usually
socially inferior) situations can also be found in unions, minority
groups, etc.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects
The concept of social capital:
Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four sources
from which enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e. social
capitals, are constituted.
Enforceable trust: It refers of social capitals grown out of community,
in which "particularistic rewards and sanctions" are enforceable on
its members in the form of collective expectation and trusts. This type
of social capitals may manifest in informal institutional settings such
as peer group pressures or solidarity within new immigrant
communities or in formal institutional setting such as community
sanction in professional associations.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Identifying types of institutional changes
Categorization of institutional changes
Evolutionary or incremental changes: It has been signified within the
perspective that "Institutions are sticky and prone to inertia and, as a
result, change quite gradually." Hence, changes undertaken by
institutions has commonly been characterized as evolutionary changes.
By evolutionary changes, it refers to "continuous change that proceeds
in small, incremental steps along a single path in certain direction."
(Campbell, 2004, p. 33)
Revolutionary changes or punctuated equilibrium: Despite the
institutional inertia and resistance to change, "some scholars
recognize, nonetheless, that relatively rapid and profound institutional
change does occur sometimes. They often describe this discontinuous
pattern of change as punctuated equilibrium." (Campbell, 2004, p. 34)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Identifying types of institutional changes
Categorization of institutional changes..
Punctuated evolution: Some scholars further specify that "The periods
of equilibrium occurring between punctuations are better characterized
as evolutionary rather than static." Hence, they prefer to characterize
change in institutions as punctuated evolution. That is, there are
evolutionary changes in terms of self reflection and social learning
within periods of equilibrium and equilibrium may be "punctuated
occasionally by crises that involve open struggle over the very core of
the institutional status quo and the eventually result in truly
fundamental institutional transformation." (p. 34)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Identifying types of institutional changes
Identifying the dimensions of changes
Scott’s conception of three pillars
• Changes in regulative dimension of pillars
• Changes in normative dimension of institutions
• Changes in cognitive dimension of institutions
Levels of abstraction
•
•
•
•
•
•
World systemic level
Societal level
Discursive level
Organizational level
Interactive level
Individual cognitive level
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Identifying types of institutional changes
Identifying the time frame: Time frame refers to the duration
of time within which institutional changes are set against for
investigation.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes: John Campbell (2004)
has stipulated the causal mechanism accounting for
institutional changes as follows
Negative feedbacks and critical junctures on dependence
path: As indicated above the maintaining and sustaining of
institutional patterns depends on the continuous feedbacks
from the prevailing "dependence path" of the institution.
(Pierson, 2004) However, as negative feedbacks from the
dependence path appear and subsequently accumulated to a
critical point. It may then trigger fundamental changes in
institution. (Campbell, 2004, p.65-68)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
Bricolage: It refers to innovations in combining existing
repertoire of institutional principles and practices so as to
solve crises or dilemma confronting an institution. (Campbell,
2004, p. 69) According to March and Olsen's conception,
bricolage can be categorized into
Substantive bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of wellestablished technical principles or practices within an institution in
order to bring about adjustment or fundamental change.
Symbolic bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of normative
and cognitive principles and practices so as to reconcile normative or
cognitive conflicts invoked by changes.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
The role of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs: The
conception of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs can
specify the agent of change in the causal explanation of
institutional changes. The performance entrepreneurs depend
basically on two factors, namely their connectivity within the
institution and the availability of repertoires to be combined. As
Campbell indicates "entrepreneurs with more diverse social,
organizational, and institutional connections tends to have
more expansive repertoires with which to work. In turn, the
broader their repertoire, the more likely they are to create a
bricolage that is very creative and revolutionary rather than one
that is less creative and evolutionary, (Campbell, 2004, p.75)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
Diffusion, translation and enactment:
Changes in punctuated equilibrium may not be invoked by bricoleurs
from within an institution. It may be triggered by input from other
institutions. In other words, institutional innovation or changes may
diffuse and circulated among institutions. Hence, institutional changes
can be copies and learnt.
However, input of changes or innovations from outside will not be
copied automatically and totally by a given institution. They must be
translated and innovatively combined with existing principles and
practice.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
Diffusion, translation and enactment:
Finally, in order for any principles and practice input from without to
substantiate within a given institution, they must be internalized
cognitively or normatively by members of the institution to become part
of their daily routines and practice. In other words, changes have to be
enacted by members on daily basis.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changes
In accounting for institutional changes, new institutionalists play
particular attentions to how agents accept (interpret, identify,
internalize, enact, etc.) new ideas and in turn make changes in their
practices, i.e. agencies.
Typology of ideas about institutional change: Campbell has
constructed a framework to classify ideas into paradigms, public
sentiments, programs and frames.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies
of Institutional Change
Explaining institutional changes:
Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changes
Typology of actors and their ideational roles: According to the
classification of ideas, Campbell has further differentiated actors
within an institution into five ideational roles
Lecture 5
Approach to Comparative-Historical Method (2):
New Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective
END