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

Deinstitutionalization Processes

As noted, persistence of institutional beliefs and practices cannot be pre- sumed. Deinstitutionalization refers to the processes by which institutions weaken and disappear. As we would expect, some analysts emphasize primarily the depletion and increasing disuse of regulative systems, not- ing enfeebled laws, diluted sanctions, and increasing noncompliance. Others stress eroding norms and evidence

Carriers and Institutional Mechanisms

Four types of carriers were identified in Chapter 4: symbolic systems, relational systems, activities, and artifacts. As I have emphasized, type of carrier affects the message being carried in multiple ways and, hence, the trajectory of institutionalization processes. 1. Symbolic Systems Attention to symbolic systems as carriers of institutional rules and beliefs emphasizes the

Organizations and Institutions: Three Views

Three views are encountered in current writings about the relation between organizations and institutions. The first, most clearly devel- oped by Douglas North (1990: 4–5) and embraced by many institu- tional economists, is based on a game analogy: Institutions provide the rules of the game, whereas organizations act as the players. Organiza- tions may

Institutional Processes: Legitimacy, Isomorphism, and Coupling

Suchman (1995b: 571) correctly points out that legitimacy has become “an anchor-point of a vastly expanded theoretical apparatus addressing the normative and cognitive forces that constrain, construct, and empower organizational actors.” The general concept of legitimacy is defined and discussed in Chapter 3. Weber was among the first social theorists to call attention to

Institutional Context and Organizational Structure

1. Imprinting Stinchcombe (1965) was the first theorist to call attention to the strong influences of social (including institutional) conditions present at the time of its founding on the structural form of an organization. He argued that “the organizational inventions that can be made at a par- ticular time in history depend on the

Interactive Institutional Processes

Although all organizations in a given institutional field or sector are subject to the effects of institutional processes within the context, not all experience them in the same way or respond in the same manner. Just as social psychologists call attention to “individual differences”— differences among individuals in their definition of and response to

Institutional Processes: Strategic Responses

Studies emphasizing institutional processes rather than effects, such as those described earlier, begin to suggest that organizations may not be quite so powerless or passive as depicted in earlier institutional accounts. Noting the oversocialized conception of organizations and the limited response repertoire proffered by early formulations—in effect, “Conform, either now or later!”—a number of