Advertisement

Institutional Change Through Institutionalization: Combining Different Approaches

  • Luciana de Oliveira Miranda
  • Paulo Carlos Du Pin Calmon
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)

Abstract

This chapter aims to contribute to the emerging literature that calls for a bridging of the variants of institutional theory and public policy theory (Bakir, 2009, 2013, Chaps. 2 and 4, 2016) by focusing on historical institutionalism in the political science literature (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010) and organizational institutionalism in the management literature (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) with special reference to different processes of institutional change (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010) through the institutionalization conducted in different ways by actors (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Therefore, it is important to note that in this chapter we present a discussion of institutional change by debating the types of institutionalization, and the role of institutional actors in this process, and conclude with a suggestion for an analytical model and a brief initial research agenda. This analytical model is based on the proposal presented by Mahoney and Thelen (2010), and includes the contribution of Lawrence and Suddaby (2006)—specifically, furthering their argument about the type of dominant change agent and how they seek to reconcile elements of agency and context in the analysis of institutional change dynamics. The framework is based on the interconnection between the institutional work and gradual institutional change approaches. Both were developed as alternatives to theoretical perspectives that put too much emphasis on social structure (e.g., path dependence theory) or human agency (e.g., institutional entrepreneurship).

References

  1. Bakir, C. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change: Multi-level governance of central banking reform. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 22(4), 571–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakir, C. (2013). Bank behaviour and resilience: The effects of structures, institutions and agents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakir, C. (2016). How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? What we have still to learn from global financial crisis. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9261-1
  4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  5. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leca, B., Battilana, J., & Boxenbaum, E. (2008). Agency and Institutions: A review of institutional entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper 08-096. Retrieved from www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/08-096.pdf
  11. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power (pp. 1–37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. North, D. (1991, Winter). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oliver, C. (1992). The Antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Skocpol, T. (1995). Why I am an historical institutionalist. Polity, 5(28), 103–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economics. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economics (pp. 1–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Thelen, K. (2003). How institutionalism evolves: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & J. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (orgs.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1–32). New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  20. True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated-equilibrium theory. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 155–187). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciana de Oliveira Miranda
    • 1
  • Paulo Carlos Du Pin Calmon
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations