Sociological institutionalism

Last updated

Sociological institutionalism (also referred to as sociological neoinstitutionalism, cultural institutionalism and world society theory) is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." [1] Its explanations are constructivist in nature. [2] According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism

treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character. [3]

Sociological institutionalists emphasize how the functions and structures of organizations do not necessarily reflect functional purposes, but rather ceremonies and rituals. [4] [5] Actors comply with institutional rules and norms because other types of behavior are inconceivable; actors follow routines because they take a for-granted quality. [6] [7] The sociological institutionalist perspective stands in contrast to rationalist and instrumental perspectives on actors and agency. [2] The latter see actors as rational, knowledgeable and with clear purpose, whereas the former highlight how actors' behavior reflects habits, superstition, and sentiments. [2] The former sees culture as an irrational residual factor in explaining behavior, whereas the latter sees culture as essential in explaining behavior. [2]

Some sociological institutionalists argue that institutions have developed to become similar (showing an isomorphism) across organizations even though they evolved in different ways. [8] [5] Institutions are therefore seen as important in cementing and propagating cultural norms. [9] [10]

It originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977. [11]

Sociological institutionalists hold that a "logic of appropriateness" guides the behavior of actors within an institution. It predicts that the norms and formal rules of institutions will shape the actions of those acting within them. According to James March, [12] the logic of appropriateness means that actions are "matched to situations by means of rules organized into identities." Thus normative institutionalism views that much of the behavior of institutional actors is based on the recognized situation that the actors encounter, the identity of the actors in the situation, and the analysis by the actor of the rules that generally govern behavior for that actor in that particular situation.

According to Jack Knight, sociological institutionalism fails to explain behavior where members of an institution fail to act with their defined institutional roles. [13] He argues that it is difficult for sociological institutionalism to explain institutional change. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social norm</span> Informal understanding of acceptable conduct

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institution</span> Structure or mechanism of social order

Institutions are humanly devised structures of rules and norms that shape and constrain individual behavior. All definitions of institutions generally entail that there is a level of persistence and continuity. Laws, rules, social conventions and norms are all examples of institutions. Institutions vary in their level of formality and informality.

New institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups. New institutionalism traditionally encompasses three major strands: sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. New institutionalism originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.

Institutional economics focuses on understanding the role of the evolutionary process and the role of institutions in shaping economic behavior. Its original focus lay in Thorstein Veblen's instinct-oriented dichotomy between technology on the one side and the "ceremonial" sphere of society on the other. Its name and core elements trace back to a 1919 American Economic Review article by Walton H. Hamilton. Institutional economics emphasizes a broader study of institutions and views markets as a result of the complex interaction of these various institutions. The earlier tradition continues today as a leading heterodox approach to economics.

In sociology, an isomorphism is a similarity of the processes or structure of one organization to those of another, be it the result of imitation or independent development under similar constraints. There are three main types of institutional isomorphism: normative, coercive and mimetic. The development that these three types of isomorphism can also create isomorphic paradoxes that hinder such development. Specifically, these isomorphic paradoxes are related to an organization's remit, resources, accountability, and professionalization.

In sociology and organizational studies, institutional theory is a theory on the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. Different components of institutional theory explain how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse.

New Institutional Economics (NIE) is an economic perspective that attempts to extend economics by focusing on the institutions that underlie economic activity and with analysis beyond earlier institutional economics and neoclassical economics. Unlike neoclassical economics, it also considers the role of culture and classical political economy in economic development.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul DiMaggio</span>

Paul Joseph DiMaggio is an American educator, and professor of sociology at New York University since 2015. Previously, he was a professor of sociology at Princeton University.

Social rule system theory is an attempt to formally approach different kinds of social rule systems in a unified manner. Social rules systems include institutions such as norms, laws, regulations, taboos, customs, and a variety of related concepts and are important in the social sciences and humanities. Social rule system theory is fundamentally an institutionalist approach to the social sciences, both in its placing primacy on institutions and in its use of sets of rules to define concepts in social theory.

Institutional analysis is that part of the social sciences which studies how institutions—i.e., structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of two or more individuals—behave and function according to both empirical rules and also theoretical rules. This field deals with how individuals and groups construct institutions, how institutions function in practice, and the effects of institutions on each other, on individuals, societies and the community at large.

Institutional logic is a core concept in sociological theory and organizational studies, with growing interest in marketing theory. It focuses on how broader belief systems shape the cognition and behavior of actors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vivien A. Schmidt</span> American academic

Vivien A. Schmidt is an American academic of political science and international relations. At Boston University, she is the Jean Monnet Chair of European Integration Professor of International Relations in the Pardee School of Global Studies, and Professor of Political Science. She is known for her work on political economy, policy analysis, democratic theory, and new institutionalism. She is a 2018 recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and has been named a Chevalier in the French Legion of Honor.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

John Wilfred Meyer is a sociologist and emeritus professor at Stanford University. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing to the present day, Meyer has contributed fundamental ideas to the field of sociology, especially in the areas of education, organizations, and global and transnational sociology. He is best known for the development of the neo-institutional perspective on globalization, known as world society or World Polity Theory. In 2015, he became the recipient of American Sociological Association's highest honor - W.E.B. Du Bois Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award.

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical approach to the study of institutions arguing that actors use institutions to maximize their utility, and that institutions affect rational individual behavior. Rational choice institutionalism arose initially from the study of congressional behaviour in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Influential early RCI scholarship was done by political economists at California Institute of Technology, University of Rochester, and Washington University. It employs analytical tools borrowed from neo-classical economics to explain how institutions are created, the behaviour of political actors within it, and the outcome of strategic interaction.

World polity theory is an analytical framework for interpreting global relations, structures, and practices. The theory views the world system as a social system with a cultural framework called world polity, which encompasses and influences the actors under it. According to the theory, world polity provides a set of cultural norms and directions that actors of the world society follow in dealing with problems and general procedures.

The logic of appropriateness is a theoretical perspective to explain human decision-making. It proposes that decisions and behavior follow from rules of appropriate behavior for a given role or identity. These rules are institutionalized in social practices and sustained over time through learning. People adhere to them because they see them as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. In other words, the logic of appropriateness assumes that actors decide on the basis of what social norms deem right rather than what cost-benefit calculations suggest best. The term was coined by organization theorists James G. March and Johan Olsen. They presented the argument in two prominent articles published by the journals Governance in 1996 and International Organization in 1998.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. Lowndes, Vivien (2010), "The Institutional Approach", in Marsh, D.; Stoker, G. (eds.), Theories and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave, p. 65
  2. 1 2 3 4 Jepperson, R.; Meyer, J. (2021), Meyer, John W.; Jepperson, Ronald L. (eds.), "Reflections on Part II: Institutional Theory", Institutional Theory: The Cultural Construction of Organizations, States, and Identities, Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–136, doi:10.1017/9781139939744.006, ISBN   978-1-107-07837-6, S2CID   233571575
  3. Meyer, J.; Jepperson, R. (2021), Meyer, John W.; Jepperson, Ronald L. (eds.), "Introduction: Cultural Institutionalism", Institutional Theory: The Cultural Construction of Organizations, States, and Identities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24, doi:10.1017/9781139939744.002, ISBN   978-1-107-07837-6, S2CID   243710122
  4. Farrell, Henry (2018), Glückler, Johannes; Suddaby, Roy; Lenz, Regina (eds.), "The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Historical Institutionalism, and Sociological Institutionalism", Knowledge and Institutions, Knowledge and Space, Springer, vol. 13, pp. 23–44, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75328-7_2, ISBN   978-3-319-75328-7, S2CID   149806588
  5. 1 2 Meyer, John W.; Rowan, Brian (1977). "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony". American Journal of Sociology. 83 (2): 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550. ISSN   0002-9602. JSTOR   2778293. S2CID   141398636.
  6. Scott, Richard W. (2014). Institutions and organizations : ideas, interests and identities. Sage. ISBN   978-1-45224222-4. OCLC   945411429.
  7. Schmidt, V.A. (2010), Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'.
  8. DiMaggio & Powell 1991.
  9. Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press. p. 3. JSTOR   10.7591/j.ctt1rv61rh.
  10. Ramirez, Francisco O.; Soysal, Yasemin; Shanahan, Suzanne (1997). "The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990". American Sociological Review. 62 (5): 735–745. doi:10.2307/2657357. ISSN   0003-1224. JSTOR   2657357.
  11. Powell, Walter W.; DiMaggio, Paul J. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226185941.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-226-67709-5.
  12. March, James G. (1994), Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, Free Press, pp. 57–58.
  13. 1 2 Knight, Jack (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge University Press. p. 15. ISBN   978-0-521-42189-8.