Institutional Theory

According to Scott (2008), institutional theory is “a widely accepted theoretical posture that emphasizes rational myths, isomorphism, and legitimacy.” Researchers building on this perspective emphasize that a key insight of institutional theory is imitation: rather than necessarily optimizing their decisions, practices, and structures, organizations look to their peers for cues to appropriate behavior. In defining institutions,

Early Institutional Theory in Economics

1. European Quarrels It is good at the outset to acknowledge the lack of logical coherence in the strands of work to be examined. In many respects, the “old” institutional economics bears a stronger intellectual kinship with the “new” institutional approaches advanced by sociologists and organiza- tional scholars than to the “new” institutional economics.

Early Institutional Theory in Political Science

Institutional approaches dominated political science in both Europe and America during the latter half of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century. I concentrate on the American scene, but first call attention to the work of a well-known but neglected student of institutions and organizations: Alexis de Tocqueville. Living

Early Institutional Theory in Sociology

Attention to institutions by sociologists has been more constant than that exhibited by either economists or political scientists. While there are a number of different discernible strands with their distinctive vocabularies and emphases, we also observe continuity from the early work of Spencer and Sumner through Davis to the recent work of Friedland and

Institutions and Organizations: Early Approaches

1. The Columbia School: Merton’s and Selznick’s Institutional Models Shortly after selections from Weber’s seminal writings on bureau- cracy were translated into English during the late 1940s, a collection of scholars at Columbia University under the leadership of Robert K.Merton revived interest in bureaucracy and bureaucratization, its sources and consequences for behavior in organizations

Foundations of Neo-institutional Theory

We have arrived at the point in our history when the ideas that have come to be recognized as neoinstitutional theory appeared. As we will see, they do not represent a sharp break with the past, although there are new emphases and insights. In this section, I review the proximate sources and founding conceptions

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Three Pillars of Institutions

To an institutionalist, knowledge of what has gone before is vital information. The ideas and insights of our predecessors provide the context for current efforts and the platform on which we necessar- ily craft our own contributions. However, as should be clear even from my brief review, the concepts and arguments advanced by our

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Defining Institutions

Let us begin with the following omnibus conception of institutions: Institutions comprise regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive ele- ments that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life. This is a dense definition containing a number of ideas that we will unpack, describe, and elaborate in this chapter and the

Crafting an Analytic Framework: The Three Pillars of Institutions

Regulative systems, normative systems, cultural-cognitive systems— each of these elements has been identified by one or another social theorist as the vital ingredient of institutions. The three elements form a continuum moving “from the conscious to the unconscious, from the legally enforced to the taken for granted” (Hoffman 1997: 36). One possible approach would

Crafting an Analytic Framework: The Three Pillars and Legitimacy

“Organizations require more than material resources and technical information if they are to survive and thrive in their social environ- ments. They also need social acceptability and credibility” (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, and Caronna 2000: 237)—in short, they require legitimacy. Suchman (1995b: 574) provides a helpful definition of this central con- cept: “Legitimacy is a

Basic Assumptions Associated With the Three Pillars

Although the differences among analysts emphasizing one or another element are partly a matter of substantive focus, they are also associ- ated with more profound differences in underlying philosophical assumptions. While it is not possible to do full justice to the complexity and subtlety of these issues, I attempt to depict the differences in

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Logics, Agency, Carriers, and Levels

1. Rationalized Models Institutions of one type or another can be traced back to the earli- est stages of the history of humankind, whereas organizations as we know them are a relatively recent development. Clearly, then, not any and all institutional frameworks are conducive to organizational growth and sustenance. Numerous social theorists have attempted

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Institutional Logics and Organizations

1. Rationalized Models Institutions of one type or another can be traced back to the earli- est stages of the history of humankind, whereas organizations as we know them are a relatively recent development. Clearly, then, not any and all institutional frameworks are conducive to organizational growth and sustenance. Numerous social theorists have attempted

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Agency and Institutions

Throughout the history of social science, there has existed a tension between those theorists who emphasize structural and cultural con- straints on action and those who emphasize the ability of individual actors to “make a difference” in the flow of events. This is a version of the ancient antinomy between freedom and control. Obviously,

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Varying Carriers

Institutions, whether regulative, normative, or cultural-cognitive elements are stressed, are conveyed by various types of vehicles or “carriers” (Jepperson 1991: 150). I identify four types: symbolic systems, relational systems, activities, and artifacts.5 These distinctions are largely orthog- onal to the three pillars, permitting us to cross-classify them (see Table 4.1). Theorists vary not only

Crafting an Analytic Framework: Varying Levels of Analysis

1. Differentiating Levels One of the principal ways in which the several varieties of institu- tional theory differ is in the level at which they are applied. The recognition of varying levels is particularly important for institutional scholars who argue that the wider contexts within which social events occur, not simply their immediate circumstances,

Creating Institutions

It is somewhat arbitrary to distinguish the processes involved in creat- ing institutions from those employed to change them. Institutions do not emerge in a vacuum; they always challenge, borrow from, and, to varying degrees, displace prior institutions. The difference lies largely in the investigator’s focus. If attention is directed primarily to the pro-

Selected Studies of Institutional Construction

1. Transnational-Level Studies Early studies of institutional building at the transnational level were pursued by political scientists employing a “realist” approach. These scholars focused attention on nation-states as the primary actors and assumed that, to the extent that they constructed or participated in international institutions and regimes, such as the World Trade Organization, they were

Three Conceptions of Institutionalization: Underlying Mechanisms

How and why does institutionalization occur? An important part of the answer to these questions is to examine the mechanisms involved in creating and sustaining institutions. Mechanisms focus attention on how effects are produced. Elster (1989: 3) regards mechanisms as the “nuts and bolts” of social processes, which Hernes (1998: 74) appropri- ately amends

Maintaining and Diffusing Institutions

1. Maintenance The concept of institution connotes stability and persistence. Are these conditions problematic? Once an institutional structure is in place, is there anything else to be said? A good many students of organizations assume that institutionalization is an absorbing state and, once com- pleted, requires no further effort at maintenance. Simon (1945/1997), for