Georg Krücken
University of Bielefeld
Department of Sociology
February 2002
email: georg.kruecken@uni-bielefeld.de
Sociological neo-institutionalism – from a European point of view1
1.
Introduction
Over the last decade sociological neo-institutionalism has become more prominent in social research. Its particular blend of theoretical insights, alongside well-defined conceptual tools and
empirical findings has helped neo-institutional research to enter the sociological canon. In particular, neo-institutionalism as organizational analysis has gained considerable attention, both in the
United States (Powell/DiMaggio 1991, Scott 1995), and in Europe (Brunsson/Olsen 1993, Hasse/Krücken 1999). An important part of the neo-institutional research agenda, however, can hardly be grasped under the label of organizational analysis; neo-institutionalism is also a specific approach to globalization. In the world polity approach as developed by John Meyer and others,
globalization of cultural and structural features of Western society is explored (Meyer et al. 1987,
Thomas et al. 1987, Meyer et al. 1997). Over the last three decades this approach has proved its
originality and fruitfulness when addressing the global diffusion of culture and its structural embodiments, which cross-cut different regions and sectors of world society.
My brief presentation of main assumptions, results and perspectives of world polity research is
inspired by Ronald Jepperson’s comprehensive overview (Jepperson 2001). Though I can by no
means match his work in depth and scope, his attempt at discussing neo-institutionalism within
the context of US American sociology and related disciplines (political sciences, economics) parallels my attempt to discuss the world polity approach from a European perspective. The central
1
claim of this paper is that from that angle, neo-institutionalism appears as an institutionalized
counter-discourse within the broader US American social science discourse – hence sharing its
underlying rationale to a greater extent than might be expected at first sight. In this general orientation I see some of the fundamental strengths but also some of the limitations of the neoinstitutional approach. By looking at neo-institutionalism through the distinct and somewhat distant lens of European sociology, I hope to add to the ongoing discussion of theoretical perspectives of neo-institutionalism in sociology.
2.
Theoretical assumptions
The basic theoretical tenets of neo-institutionalism in sociology have to be seen against the backdrop of broader currents in US American social sciences. Neo-institutionalism challenges many
of their key characteristics, which have become institutionalized in the day-to-day routines of research and teaching. In particular, three taken-for-granted characteristics of US American sociological mainstream are the main targets of the neo-institutional agenda: realism (a), rationality (b),
and actorhood (c).
First, sociological neo-institutionalism challenges realism in the social sciences (a). Realism is
the mostly implicit ontological assumption underlying strong notions of rationality (b) and actorhood (c) in sociology. Against realism in social research, neo-institutionalists stress the role of
myths and symbols. Herewith, the phenomenological heritage of neo-institutional research and its
strong emphasis on meaning - as opposed to the idea of a social reality which can be understood
without referring to a broader meaning system - becomes most obvious. As a consequence, neoinstitutionalists see myths and symbols as key features of globalization processes. Main concepts
for describing these processes - concepts like rationality, modernity, and progress - are treated as
myths and not as reality per se. They provide meaning to individuals, organizations, and nationstates as the main forms of modern actorhood (see c) and are only loosely coupled with their actual practices. Strong symbols support these myths. Ministries for science and education are such
symbols. They represent the grand narrative of world society because they symbolize rationality,
modernity, and progress. The attempt at deconstructing a taken-for-granted reality is the starting1
Paper to be presented at the Comparative Workshop, Department of Sociology, Stanford University, February 20,
2
point of the neo-institutional approach. Before briefly discussing other assumptions and their implications, it is worthwhile mentioning that the anti-realist stance of sociological neoinstitutionalism has to be seen within a national context, in which strong notions of reality are
heavily entrenched – think of the overwhelming use of the term ”real” in American everyday life,
but take also the outcry by sociologist Charles Perrow against the emphasis on myths and symbols in neo-institutional analysis (Perrow 1985).
Second, neo-institutionalist research also challenges strong assumptions of rationality (b). Especially, economic rationality is a main target. Neo-institutionalists argue that individuals do not act
according to an imaginary utility function. Nor do entities like organizations and states actually
strive for overall efficiency. According to neo-institutionalists, rationality is not a useful explanatory tool. Instead, the adoption and taken-for-grantedness of culturally legitimate models and
fashions is emphasized. Following neo-institutional research, models and fashions rapidly diffuse
across persons, organizations and nations, which do not necessarily evaluate the promises of rationality and efficiency that typically accompany such fashions. Examples for the world-wide diffusion of role models are abundant. Think of the current higher education policy discourse, in
which models like ”the innovative university” and ”the entrepreneurial university” are celebrated
world-wide. In a similar fashion, one can also refer to concepts like ”new public management” (in
public administrations), ”total quality management” (in hospitals), and ”eco audit” (in firms),
which represent culturally legitimate models, not means of enhancing rationality and efficiency.
Third, neo-institutionalism poses a serious challenge to strong notions of actorhood (c). It is not
actors and their interests, which constitute global society. The causality is not ”bottom up”, but
”top down”: society constitutes its actors through processes of globalization. Three forms of
modern actorhood are reconstructed: individuals, organizations, nation-states. All three forms
cannot be taken as natural units of sociological analysis. Their social construction, rather, has to
be explained. The key explanatory variable is the modern world polity, in which cultural patterns
of Western society are embedded and manifested. Individuals, organizations, and nation-states are
not autonomous entities and therefore free to choose means and ends according to idiosyncratic
preferences; they rather enact broader world polity scripts. Individuality is not seen as being opposed to societal pressures. On the contrary, the enlightened, modern and open-minded individual
2002.
3
has become the overall social norm. Likewise, organizations are shaped by models and fashions,
which do not emerge endogenously (see examples above). And, finally, the nation-state, which in
itself is a historically rather new phenomenon, is shaped by the adherence to world polity principles. Modern nation-states are supposed to be less belligerent, and human rights have to be respected - at least symbolically.
For sociologists with a non-US American background, the first two targets for positioning the
neo-institutional approach seem to be less exciting. Emphasizing the role of myths and symbols
(a) and deconstructing strong notions of rationality (b) threads its way through both classical sociological theory (Durkheim, Pareto, Parsons etc.) and a great bulk of current sociological research, especially in non-US American contexts. The constitution of actorhood (c), however,
seems to open new perspectives for institutional thinking in sociology. The strategy is similar to
those rational choice theorists who tried to explain what is presumably the hardest case for rational choice explanations: the emergence of social norms. In order to prove the unlimited scope of
rational choice explanations, rational choice theorists argued that social norms could be reconstructed as the result of interactions among rational and egoistic individuals (Ullmann-Margalit
1977, Voss 1985). In our case the causality is reversed: individual actorhood, presumably the
hardest case for institutional explanations in sociology, is not a taken-for-granted unit of analysis,
but is rather explained as a result of broader societal rationalization processes.
It comes as no surprise that the constitution of actorhood is at the very center of recent theoretical
developments. In Meyer/Jepperson (2000) the idea is elaborated that scripted actors are also expected to act on behalf of others, and that executing this expectation has become part of the daily
routines of modern individuals – another dig at rational choice theories. More on the constitution
of modern actorhood is to be found in a paper by David Frank and John Meyer, who discuss the
profusion of individual roles in the post-World War II period, with particular reference to the
multiplication of sexual identities in the last two or three decades (Frank/Meyer 2002). This process is less rational and inevitable than it may appear in retrospect. Its very characteristics, therefore, have to be reconstructed before it falls prey to a straightforward tale of progress, in which its
contingent elements are eliminated: ”Take Gay and Lesbian rights for example. Some of the guys
who are old enough remember this could not happen, and then it did happen. And they know that
something funny, something strange happened. But in ten years, there’ll be a Whiggish history
4
written in which this will seem as an inevitable flow of progress, of rationality (Meyer in Krücken
2000: 62).”
At this point one might think of post-structuralist, post-feminist, and deconstructivist thinking.
John Meyer and other neo-institutionalists, however, are far too much embedded in US American
sociology to embrace such approaches. This embeddedness is not only obvious in the choice of
theoretical targets, but also in the choice of appropriate research methods. In order to make the
intellectual counter-discourse of neo-institutional theory heard, basic methodological assumptions
of US American sociology are - in sharp contrast to all kinds of post-structuralist, post-feminist,
and deconstructivist approaches - adopted. Therefore, a few words on methods, below.
3.
Methods
The rigorous quantitative approach employed in neo-institutional research is somewhat striking
for a European audience. In European sociology, theoretical ideas like those on actorhood are
more often substantiated by qualitative empirical findings. However, the strong quantitative orientation of US sociology has left its mark on the general methodological orientation of neoinstitutionalism which after all had its start in the US, not Europe. Typically, neo-institutionalists
conduct longitudinal analyses in order to track processes of globalization. Contrary to the theoretical ideas, the research methodologies being employed are rather conventional. Research data are
usually drawn from international organizations (Unesco, World Bank etc.) and their statistical
yearbooks. Regression analyses, factor analyses, structural equation models for panel data and
event history analysis are the main tools for data analysis.
Event history analysis deserves some attention because it is a fairly novel methodological approach for many sociologists, since its origins lie in epidemiological research. Event history analysis allows the researcher to measure the transition from one state to another. In epidemiological
research, one can measure the transition from not being infected to being infected, and through
observation of qualitative or discrete change, one can measure the spread of an infectious disease.
The usefulness for the study of globalization processes is clear. One can measure the spread of
globalization through tracking the history of ”contagious” events. Relevant events are, for exam-
5
ple, the foundation of and the membership in international organizations, the ratification of international treaties, and the national approval of international human rights standards.
4.
Research program
The combination of theory and methods allows to delineate a distinct sociological research program, which focuses on the world-wide spread of Western cultural and structural patterns. Therefore, in the context of globalization research one could label the underlying model of neoinstitutionalism as one of diffusion. The assumption of a ”top down” spread of Western patterns
parallels diffusion processes known in chemistry. Cultural and structural patterns of the West diffuse through space like a gas - beginning with regions of a high concentration of its molecules
and then moving toward regions with a low concentration. If successful and if not being met by
obstacles, one ultimately gets an equal distribution of gas molecules in space. Obviously, everyone working along neo-institutional lines knows that social diffusion processes are not that simple. But this strong assumption allows for a distinct research program on globalization processes.
This program is, on the one hand, directed against all rationalist, individualist, and ”bottom up”
approaches. It is, on the other hand, open to falsification. This goes hand in hand with openness to
scrutiny from others and prevents sociological research from the trap of idiosyncratic storytelling; a major strength of neo-institutional theory.
Two edited volumes of recent origin exemplify how basic theoretical and methodological tenets
of the neo-institutional approach are turned into empirical research.
The first volume is edited by John Boli and George Thomas (1999). The empirical focus is on the
rise of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) since 1875. Organizations in general are of great importance for the neo-institutional approach since they represent a central form
of modern actorhood which diffuses globally. International organizations (IOs) deserve particular
attention in globalization processes. The papers in Boli/Thomas (1999) explore the role that a
subset of international organizations, INGOs, play in these processes. With regard to the globalization of Western culture INGOs are conceptualized as both cause and effect or independent and
dependent variable. The results of the individual contributions to the volume are unambiguous. In
all papers the quantitative growth of INGOs over the analyzed period of time is shown. This is
6
especially true after 1945. National policies in domains as diverse as birth control, technical
standardization, environmental protection, and human rights have been affected by INGOs. INGOs, however, usually possess few material resources and they are not entitled to make legally
binding decisions. How come they have nevertheless been so effective in shaping national policies? This puzzle is explained within the neo-institutional framework. INGOs are seen as modern
actors, which incorporate key world polity principles like universalism, individualism, rationality,
progress, self-organization and cosmopolitanism. Due to the adoption of these essential cultural
features of world society, they are regarded as legitimate actors in the international system as well
as in those nation-states, which try to be modern and legitimate actors themselves by adhering to
world polity principles.
The second volume contains studies on the global expansion of science and education (Drori et
al. 2002). The latter area has been central for the neo-institutionalist research program since its
early formulations in the 1970s, while the former one is of more recent origins. All these studies
can be seen as major criticism of the iron triangle of realism, rationality and strong actorhood in
US American social sciences (see 2.). According to the authors, science and education work as
myths and symbolize modernity (against realism). Economic benefits of science and education
are widely believed in, though not at all clear in statistical analyses of this relationship (against
rationality). And the global expansion of science and education is not due to autonomous actors.
On the contrary, actors like the rationalized individual or science ministries are instead constituted through the global expansion process (against strong notions of actorhood). Concrete studies,
for example, emphasize the world-wide homogenization of curricula in schools and the foundation of science ministries and international scientific organizations. The general thrust of the research presented in Drori et al. (2002) is to show with a lot of statistical evidence that science and
education are less to be seen in their instrumental dimensions (in particular, as means for economic development). Rather, they should instead be understood as carriers of world polity principles (see above).
Criticisms of neo-institutional research are manifold. Even those authors who agree on the originality and fruitfulness of the neo-institutional approach see the need for broadening its methodological basis, specifying key conceptual terms and mechanisms, and coming to terms with heterogeneity and differences in global society (see Schneiberg/Clemens 2002, Engels 1999: 35-37,
Hasse/Krücken 1999: 37-38). In opening up the neo-institutional agenda to these suggestions, in7
teresting research perspectives could emerge. At the end of the presentation, however, I would
like to start from a different angle. When considered as a theoretical research program, the debate
on neo-institutionalism is mainly conducted within the confines of US American social sciences
(see Jepperson 2001). Neo-institutionalism, consequently, is seen as a major antidote against rationalist and individualist explanatory models. From a European perspective, however, the very
strengths of neo-institutionalism can hardly be grasped from positioning the approach against rivalizing approaches, which are much less institutionalized in European sociology. Though realist
assumptions, rationalist explanations, and models of strong actorhood are frequently employed in
sociological research, the theoretical value of a macrosociological approach is rather evaluated in
the light of other socio-cultural approaches to modern society.
5.
Neo-institutionalism and European social theory
Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration (1984) is a good starting-point for positioning neoinstitutionalism within the field of European social theory, because it shares some common features with neo-institutional thinking. In particular, both approaches are embedded in intellectual
traditions that are macrosociological in orientation and that have frequently been criticized for
being too static and deterministic. As a response to this criticism, both approaches emphasize ongoing processes of societal reproduction, including those which occur on the microlevel of individual action. Processes of reproduction, however, are conceptualized very differently in the two
theories. Giddens stresses the role of a variety of factors in these processes. Among these factors,
the reflexive monitoring of action by knowledgeable agents is of prime importance. In contrast,
neo-institutionalists assume routines and habits, through which broader social structures achieve
taken-for-grantedness in social life.
But neo-institutionalism and structuration theory do not differ only on the role of reflexivity,
knowledge, and agency in the reproduction of social life. Giddens’ work is, in addition, characterized by strong psychological and anthropological underpinnings. According to Giddens (1984,
1990), the search for ontological security and the control of diffuse anxiety motivates much social
action; this assumption echoes much of the older German tradition in institutional theory (Gehlen,
Scheler, Plessner). Neo-institutionalists, however, do not draw on concepts so opaque to socio8
logical analysis. Instead, they focus on social expectation structures, which shape social action.
These expectation structures are not a-historically given, but rather the result of an increasingly
globalized society. Moreover, they are not just directed at individual actors, but also shape other
forms of actorhood like organizations and nation-states, whose behavior can hardly be assessed in
terms borrowed from ego psychology and philosophical anthropology.
Niklas Luhmann’s macrosociological systems theory (see Luhmann 1995, 1997) seems to be
much closer to neo-institutional thinking than Giddens’ theory of structuration. Systems theory
and no-institutionalism depart from structuration theory in a number of important aspects. Since
the 1970s both Luhmann and Meyer have emphasized the idea of a world society, while Giddens
up to the 1980s described political systems exclusively in terms of nation-states. Contrary to Giddens, both Luhmann and Meyer emphasize the role of organizations in the dynamics of modern
society, though society is obviously more than the sum of its organizations. And, finally, both systems theory and neo-institutionalism see the modes of reproduction in society as very different
from those which characterize the theory of structuration. Individual actors are downplayed, as
are psychological motives. Social systems (Luhmann) reproduce themselves through mere coupling of their operations. In systems theory, binary codes structure this process very much as
scripts and frames in neo-institutional theory. The reflexive monitoring of action by knowledgeable agents, which is so important in Giddens’ theory, is substituted for more abstract and less
time-consuming decision-rules. Suggesting that neo-institutionalism and systems theory depart
from many a concept in current sociological theorizing, however, does not imply that the core
characteristics of these theories can be integrated at a meta-level of theorizing. Rather, I assume
that systems theory and neo-institutionalism represent incommensurable paradigms. While in
Luhmann’s theory, society is defined through autonomous, functionally differentiated social systems (economics, science, politics, religion etc.), neo-institutionalism assumes broader rationalization processes, which shape all units of analysis.
As a result, both approaches, though incommensurable, are nevertheless complementary to each
other. But what does complementarity mean in this case? I would draw on an analogy to show my
skepticism with regard to the possibility of an integration at a theoretical meta-level. In physics,
complementarity means that elementary particles can either be observed as particles or as waves,
but never as both. Similarly, society can either be observed from a differentiation or a rationalization perspective. The latter, adopted by Meyer, is an appropriate tool for observing the world9
wide diffusion of broader societal expectations, which shape social systems independent of their
specific orientation. The former, emphasized by Luhmann, instead focuses on the internal logic of
autonomous social systems, and so is best used to explain differences in orientation among, for
example, the economic and the political system. In this systems view, broader social expectations
might diffuse in space and time, but they can hardly alter the robust pattern of functionally differentiated systems.
But where can strong European parallels to the neo-institutional research program be found if not
in Giddens or in Luhmann? Where is an intellectual counterpart? I guess that the most fruitful, yet
unexplored terrain lies in Michel Foucault’s approach. My (perhaps idiosyncratic) reading of
Foucault is largely motivated by his three volumes on the history of sexuality, especially the first
volume (Foucault 1990). Here, one finds many themes so central to neo-institutionalism – rationalization, science and education, soft technologies, construction of individual actorhood, social
standardization. I will very briefly discuss these themes below. In addition, the volumes by Dreyfus/Rabinow (1983) and Martin et al. (1988) about Foucault as well as recent discussions on
”governmentality” (Dean 1999, Rose 1996) bear witness to the strong affinity between some crucial parts of Foucauldian and neo-institutional thinking.
In general, though from very different angles and despite Foucault’s rejection of the idea of a coherent narrative of society, Meyer and Foucault have developed a theory of societal rationalization with fundamental similar underlying mechanisms. While many sociological theories see rationalization as driven by political and/or economic forces, both Meyer and Foucault see education and science as key driving-forces in rationalization processes. Similarly, instead of focusing
on the brute exercise of power and domination, rather soft technologies and media for generating
compliance (like text books and counseling) are explored. Because of this perspective, both approaches emphasize the social construction of modern, individual actorhood. Individual actors are
a consequence of, not a prerequisite for rationalization processes. Individuality is demystified in
both approaches. The social standardization of individuality and its obligatory character are core
features in neo-institutional and Foucauldian theorizing. And in both approaches (with the notable
exception of Foucault’s early work on ”Madness and Civilization”) there is no romanticized way
out – no ”life worlds” (Jürgen Habermas 1991), no ”world of subjectivity” (Alain Touraine 1995)
and no ”self” (Manuel Castells 1997) beyond rationalized society.
10
There are, of course, differences. In Foucault, the exposure of actors to surveillance and scrutiny
by external forces is limited to individual actors. Nation-states and organizations are seen as being exempted from the exposure to outside observers. This can be illustrated by referring to Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish” (1977). Here, the prison is described as a panopticum, i.e. a central tower that disciplines the observed prisoners through its very capability to oversee them at all
times. But in modern societies the lines of sight of a panopticum are extended or even reversed.
Also nation-states are increasingly shaped by processes of external surveillance and scrutiny as
has been shown by world polity research (Meyer et al. 1997). Likewise, regulatory agencies are
exposed to a multitude of critical observers like lobby groups, activists, and mass media (for the
example of drug regulation in the US see Daemmrich/Krücken 2000). Unlike the observed
prisoners described by Foucault, nation-states and organizations are quite aware of being
observed, and modify their behavior accordingly. The main difference between Foucault and neoinstitutional research, though, lies in methods. Foucault’s work is historical and based on texts.
This allows him to go further back in time than his neo-institutional counterpart in the reconstruction of rationalization processes. Neo-institutional research is, due to its orientation within positivist US sociology, not historical and text-oriented, but purely quantitative and more standardized in format. In this, ironically, the latter approach can be seen as more radical and selfreflexive than Foucault’s because here one submits to the pressures of rationalized society by
quantification and standardization.
Alas, meta-theoretical questions concerning the neo-institutional research program are hardly discussed. In European social theory, neo-institutionalism is largely ignored. Due to its quantitative
orientation, neo-institutionalism appears as a research technology, not as a theoretical approach in
its own right. Also neo-institutionalists hardly engage in meta-theoretical exchanges beyond those
which refer to US American sociology and disciplines like economics and political sciences. But I
suppose that in deconstructing strong notions of realism, rationality, and actorhood, neoinstitutionalism is only half way into the debate. Coming to terms with grand narratives of society
(Giddens and Luhmann, for example) as well as with post-structuralist approaches in sociology,
which deny the possibility of a coherent narrative (Foucault and beyond), could open up new perspectives for neo-institutional thinking.
11
References
Boli, John and George M. Thomas, eds. (1999). Constructing World Culture. International
Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Brunsson, Nils and Olsen, Johan P. (1993). The Reforming Organization, London, Routledge.
Castells, Manuel (1997). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, 3 Vols., Cambridge, MA/Oxford, Blackwell.
Daemmrich, Arthur and Krücken, Georg (2000). “Risk versus Risk. Decision-making Dilemmas
in the United States and Germany”, Science as Culture, 9/4: 505-534.
Dean, Mitchell (1999). Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society, London, Sage.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Rabinow, Paul, eds. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Drori, Gili, Meyer, John W., Ramirez, Francisco O. and Schofer, Evan, eds. (2002). Science in
the Modern World Polity. Institutionalization and Globalization, Stanford, CA, Stanford
University Press (forthcoming).
Engels, Anita (1999). Globaler Umweltdiskurs und lokale Umweltkrisen – Gesellschaft und anthropogener Klimawandel im Senegal. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Bielefeld,
Dept.
of
Sociology
(electronically
available
at
http://archiv.ub.unibielefeld.de/disshabi/2000/0005.pdf).
Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, Pantheon
Books.
Foucault, Michel (1990). The History of Sexuality, 3 Vols., Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Frank, David and Meyer, John (2002). ”The Profusion of Individual Roles in the Post-War Period”, Sociological Theory, 20 (forthcoming).
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society, Berkeley, CA, University of California
Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (1991). The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 Vols., Cambridge, Polity
Press.
Hasse, Raimund and Krücken, Georg (1999). Neo-Institutionalismus, Bielefeld, transcript-Verlag.
Jepperson, Ronald L. (2001). The Development and Application of Sociological
Neoinstitutionalism, European University Institute, Florenz, EUI Working Papers RSC
2001/5.
Krücken, Georg (2000). An Interview with John W. Meyer, sozusagen, 7, University of Bielefeld,
Dept. of Sociology: 58-63.
Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Social Systems, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, 2 Vols., Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp.
Martin, Luther H., Gutman, Huck and Hutton, Patrick H., eds. (1988). Technologies of the Self. A
Seminar with Michel Foucault, London, Tavistock.
Meyer, John W., Boli, John and Thomas, George M. (1987). ”Ontology and Rationalization in the
Western Cultural Account” in Thomas, George M., Meyer, John W. and Boli, John, eds.
(1987). Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, Newbury
Park, CA, Sage: 12-37.
Meyer, John W., Boli, John, Thomas, George M. and Ramirez, Francisco O. (1997). ”World Society and the Nation State”, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 144-181.
12
Meyer, John W. and Jepperson, Ronald L. (2000). “The “Actors” of Modern Society: The
Cultural Construction of Social Agency”, Sociological Theory 18/1: 100-120.
Perrow, Charles (1985). ”Review Essay: Overboard with Myth and Symbol”, American Journal
of Sociology, 91: 151-155.
Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J., eds. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL/London, Chicago University Press.
Rose, Nikolas (1996). Inventing Our Selves. Psychology, Power, and Personhood, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Schneiberg, Marc and Clemens, Elisabeth S. (2002). “The Typical Tools for the Job: Research
Strategies in Institutional Analysis”, in: Powell, Walter W. and Jones, Dan L., eds., How
Institutions Change, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press (forthcoming).
Scott, W. Richard (1995). Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Thomas, George M., Meyer, John W. and Boli, John, eds. (1987). Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Touraine, Alain (1995). Critique of Modernity, Oxford, Blackwell.
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna (1977). The Emergence of Norms, Oxford, Clarendon.
Voss, Thomas (1985). Rationale Akteure und soziale Institutionen. Beiträge zu einer endogenen
Theorie des sozialen Tauschs, München, Oldenbourg.
13