Advertisement

Embedding Innovation: Bricolage and the Case of the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority

  • Yishu Zhou
  • Leong Ching
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)

Abstract

The explanatory capacity of dominant accounts of institutional theory is primarily focused on theories of institutional homogeneity and stability, and the persistence of institutions, which are “sticky” and resistant to modification (Pierson, 2000; see also Bakir & Jarvis in this volume). In part developed as a response to “prevailing conceptions of organizations as bounded, relatively autonomous, rational actors” (Scott & Meyer, 1994, p. 1), institutionalism provided a foil to what was perceived as the over-individualization of modern society by instead emphasizing the concept of agency as generated through collective action, sustained by shared understandings and associations, and dependent upon common underlying institutional processes (Frank & Meyer, 2002).

References

  1. Bakir, C. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change: Multilevel governance of central banking reform. Governance, 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. Ball, W. (1995). A pragmatic framework for the evaluation of policy arguments. Policy Studies Review, 14(1–2), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106
  5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change: The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1982). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, S. (2010). Water utility benchmarking: Measurement, methodologies, and performance incentives. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Biswas, A. K., & Tortajada, C. (2010). Water supply of Phnom Penh: An example of good governance. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26(22), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blyth, M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. L. (1997). Mechanisms of evolutionary change in economic governance: Interaction, interpretation and bricolage. In L. Magnusson & J. Ottoson (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and path dependence (pp. 10–32). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. L., & Pederson, O. K. (2001). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chan, E. S. (2009). Bring safe water to Phnom Penh’s city. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 25(4), 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European Journal of Development Research, 14(2), 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colomy, P. (1998). Neofunctionalism and neoinstitutionalism: Human agency and interest in institutional change. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colomy, P., & Rhoades, G. (1994). Toward a micro corrective of structural differentiation theory. Sociological Perspectives, 37(4), 547–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Das, B., Chan, E. S., Visoth, C., Pangare, G., & Simpson, R. (2010). Sharing the reform process: Learning from the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority (PPWSA). Bangkok: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press.Google Scholar
  20. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  22. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). The profusion of individual roles and identities in the postwar period. Sociological Theory, 20(1), 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipedi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.Google Scholar
  29. Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (2004). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay, C. (2001). The crisis of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain: An ideational institutionalist approach. In J. L. Campbell & O. K. Pederson (Eds.), The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (pp. 193–218). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hay, C. (2006). Understanding regime change in British industrial relations. Labour History Symposium, 47(2), 227–235.Google Scholar
  33. Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hughes, C. (2013). Friction, good governance and the poor: Cases from Cambodia. International Peacekeeping, 20(2), 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan, T. J. (1986). The narrative structure of policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  37. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, W. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leca, B., Battilana, J., & Boxenbaum, E. (2008). Agency and institutions: A review of institutional entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  39. Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 793–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leong, C. (2009). Ek Sonn Chan and the transformation of the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority. Singapore: Institute of Water Policy.Google Scholar
  41. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2009). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Merrey, D. J., & Cook, S. (2012). Fostering institutional creativity at multiple levels: Towards facilitated institutional bricolage. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, R. E. (2006). Visiting relatives: Current development in the sociology of knowledge. Organization, 13(5), 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mukhtarov, F. (2013). Translating water policy innovations into Kazakhstan: The importance of context. In V. de Kruijf et al. (Eds.), Water governance, policy and knowledge transfer: International studies on contextual water management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Mukhtarov, F., Fox, S., Mukhamedova, N., & Wegerich, K. (2015). Institutional design in the face of contextual relevance: Water user groups in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organizational Science, 1(3), 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Prokopy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Development, 3(11), 1801–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rao, H. (2007). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 912–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Renzetti, S., & Dupont, D. (2003). The performance of municipal water utilities: The evidence on the role of ownership. Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health, 67, 1861–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Political Science, 11(1), 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.) ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Scott, R., & Meyer, J. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  56. Seo, M., & Creed, W. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.Google Scholar
  57. Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turner, J. H. (1986). Review essay: The theory of structuration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4), 969–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wahid, F., & Sein, M. K. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurs: The driving force in institutionalization of public systems in developing countries. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(1), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walgenbach, P., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship and the structuring of organizations and markets. In A. Ebner & N. Beck (Eds.), The institutions of the market: Organizations, social systems, and governance (pp. 180–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilder, M., & Howlett, M. P. (2014). The politics of policy anomalies: Bricolage and the hermeneutics of paradigms. Critical Policy Studies, 8(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zilber, T. B. (2006). The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli hi-tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yishu Zhou
    • 1
  • Leong Ching
    • 1
  1. 1.Lee Kuan Yew School of Public PolicyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations