MODULE IN DISCIPLINE AND IDEAS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES
Performance Standards
 Will be able to identify what Institutionalism and how does it helps on the
different issues of the society.
Learning Competencies
 Determine how subjective is prioritized because of the belief of people.
CONTENT
 Key concept in Institutionalism
INSTITUTIONALISM
Overview
What is INSTITUTIONALISM?



Institutionalism it’s an economic school of thought that emphasizes the role of social
institutions in influencing economic behavior.
It’s expense of other factors.
In the social sciences, an approach that emphasizes the role of institutions
Questions?
There are 7 Concepts of Institutionalism, What are they?







Old Institutionalism
New institutionalism
Institutional economics
New institutional economics
Historical institutionalism
Institutionalism in political parties
Institutionalism in international relations
Old Institutionalism
- An approach to the study of politics that focuses on formal institutions of
government.
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.[1] 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.
Overview
In defining institutions, according to William Richard Scott (1995, 235), there is "no single and
universally agreed definition of an ’institution’ in the institutional school of thought." Scott
(1995:33, 2001:48) asserts that:
Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. [They] are
composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that, together with associated
activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life. Institutions are transmitted
by various types of carriers, including symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and
artifacts. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from the world system to localized
interpersonal relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change
processes, both incremental and discontinuous.
According to Scott (2008), institutional theory is "a widely accepted theoretical posture that
emphasizes rational myths, isomorphism, and legitimacy."[2] Researchers building on this
perspective emphasize that a key insight of institutional theory is imitation: rather than
necessarily optimizing their decisions, practices, and structures, organizations look to their peers
for cues to appropriate behavior.[3]
According to Kraft's Public Policy (2007):[4] Institutional Theory is "Policy-making that
emphasizes the formal and legal aspects of government structures."
Trends in institutional theory
There are two dominant trends in institutional theory:
 Old Institutionalism
 New institutionalism
Powell and DiMaggio (1991)[5] define an emerging perspective in organization theory and
sociology, which they term the 'new institutionalism', as rejecting the rational-actor models
of Classical economics. Instead, it seeks cognitive and cultural explanations of social and
organizational phenomena by considering the properties of supra-individual units of analysis
that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of individuals’ attributes or
motives.
Scott (1995)[6] indicates that, in order to survive, organisations must conform to the
rules and belief systems prevailing in the environment (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983;[7] Meyer and Rowan, 1977[8]), because institutional isomorphism, both
structural and procedural, will earn the organisation legitimacy (Dacin, 1997;
Deephouse, 1996; Suchman, 1995[9]). For instance, multinational corporations
(MNCs) operating in different countries with varying institutional environments will
face diverse pressures. Some of those pressures in host and home institutional
environments are testified to exert fundamental influences on competitive strategy
(Martinsons, 1993; Porter, 1990) and human resource management (HRM) practices
(Rosenzweig and Singh, 1991;[10] Zaheer, 1995). Corporations also face institutional
pressures from their most important peers: peers in their industry and peers in their
local (headquarters) community; for example, Marquis and Tilcsik (2016) show that
corporate philanthropic donations are largely driven by isomorphic pressures that
companies experience from their industry peers and local peers.[3] Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and social organizations can also be susceptible to isomorphic
pressures.[5]
Challenges in different types of economies
There is substantial evidence that firms in different types of economies react differently
to similar challenges (Knetter, 1989). Social, economic, and political factors constitute an
institutional structure of a particular environment which provides firms with advantages
for engaging in specific types of activities there. Businesses tend to perform more
efficiently if they receive the institutional support.
Theory of institutional deficiencies
Martinsons (1998) developed a theory of institutional deficiencies (TIDE) suggesting that
relationship-based commerce will prevail where rule-based markets can not flourish due
to institutional deficiencies. Martinsons (2008) extends TIDE to show how the
development of relationship-based e-commerce in China has resulted from that country's
lack of trustworthy and enforceable set of rules for doing business. His theory suggests
that factors such as personal connections (networking in the United States, guanxi in
China, blat in Russia, etc.), informal information, and blurred business-government
relations (which also encourage corruption) will constrain the transition from the physical
marketplace to online marketspaces.
New institutionalism
a social theory that focuses on developing a sociological view of institutions, the way
they interact and the effects of institutions on society
Overview
New institutionalism or neo-institutionalism is a theory that focuses on developing a
sociological view of institutions—the way they interact and the way they affect society. It
provides a way of viewing institutions outside of the traditional views of economics by
explaining why and how institutions emerge in a certain way within a given context. One of the
institutional views that has emerged has argued that institutions have developed to become
similar (showing an isomorphism) across organizations even though they evolved in different
ways, and has studied how institutions shape the behavior of agents (i.e. people, organizations,
governments) (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
So pervasive has the impact of institutionalism been that each of the social science
disciplines now has its own ‘new institutionalism’ (Lowndes 1996; Koelble 1995). In economics,
there have been a range of arguments about how and why institutions matter (Hodgson 1988).
For example, scholars have argued that institutions can play an important role in reducing
transaction costs and various associated forms of market uncertainty and information costs and
also in helping to monitor and enforce contracts and agreements. Thus, economic institutions,
such as the firm, are created to organise a process of pulling back from the open market to
‘internalise’ certain forms of transactions to help cope with such problems (North 1990,
Williams 1985, Zald 1989). In sociology, emphasis is put on the way in which institutional life
establishes normative orientations, conventions and taken-for-granted practices that shape and
influence behaviour, often in subtle ways (DiMaggio and Powell 1991). And in political science,
as we saw above, there has been renewed interest in how institutional arrangements shape the
behaviour, power and preferences of actors in politics.
Sub-fields of New Institutionalism
Normative institutionalism
Normative institutionalism is sometimes seen as the "original" new institutionalism;
much of the introduction of this article relates to a normative view of institutionalism. A
sociological interpretation of institutions, normative institutionalism holds that a "logic of
appropriateness" guides the behavior of actors within an institution. The norms and formal
rules of institutions will shape the actions of those acting within them. According to March
(1994, 57-58),[2] the logic of appropriateness means that actions are "matched to situations by
means of rules organized into identities." Thus according to normative institutionalism, much of
the behavior of institutional actors is based on the recognized situation 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.
This approach can be readily contrasted with rational choice institutionalism: rather than a
series of calculated actions designed to maximise perceived benefit, any given actor within an
institution will feel to some extent constrained and obligated by the norms and rules of the
institution.
Rational choice institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism draws heavily from rational choice theory, but is not
identical to it. Proponents of this theory argue that political actors' rational choices are
constrained ("bounded rationality"). But, individuals realize their goals can be best achieved
through institutions. In other words, institutions are systems of rules and inducements to
behavior in which individuals attempt to maximize their own utilities.
Historical institutionalism
As the name suggests, this version of institutionalism states that "history matters". Paths
chosen or designed early on in the existence of an institution tend to be followed throughout the
institution's development. Institutions will have an inherent agenda based on the pattern of
development, both informal (the way things are generally done) and formal (laws, rule sets and
institutional interaction).
Empirical institutionalism
Actor-centered institutionalism
Actor-centered institutionalism or also called neo-institutionalism emphasizes the
autonomy of political institutions from society in which they exist. It assumes a greater influence
on human behaviour coming from the socio-political environment surrounding people and
organizations than from within individual or group based interactions.
Constructivist institutionalism
Recently, a number of authors have used the term "constructivist institutionalism" or
"discursive namic approach to institutional change than the older three new institutionalisms".
Constructivist/ Discursive institutionalists assert that political, social, or policy discourses can
perform communicative functions, in which actors publicly expressing ideas can lead to social
change, or coordinating functions, in which ideas and meaning provide a mechanism for multiple
actors to achieve consensus on norms and values and thus create social change. This is
increasingly moving beyond Political Science and in international relations theory and foreign
policy analysis.
Feminist institutionalism
Is a new institutionalist approach that looks at "how gender norms operate within
institutions and how institutional processes construct and maintain gender power dynamics".
Sociological institutionalism
Is a form of new institutionalism that concerns ‘the way in which institutions create
meaning for individuals, providing important theoretical building blocks for normative
institutionalism within political science’.
Institutional economics
It focuses on understanding the role of the evolutionary process and the role of
institutions in shaping economic behaviour. Its original focus lay in Thorstein Veblen's instinctoriented 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.
Thorstein Veblen
Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929) wrote his first and most influential book while he was at
the University of Chicago, on The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). In it he analyzed the
motivation in capitalism for people to conspicuously consume their riches as a way of
demonstrating success. Conspicuous leisure was another focus of Veblen's critique. The concept
of conspicuous consumption was in direct contradiction to the neoclassical view that capitalism
was efficient.
In The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) Veblen distinguished the motivations of
industrial production for people to use things from business motivations that used, or misused,
industrial infrastructure for profit, arguing that the former is often hindered because businesses
pursue the latter. Output and technological advance are restricted by business practices and the
creation of monopolies. Businesses protect their existing capital investments and employ
excessive credit, leading to depressions and increasing military expenditure and war through
business control of political power. These two books, focusing on criticism first of consumerism,
and second of profiteering, did not advocate change.
Through the 1920s and after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 Thorstein Veblen's warnings
of the tendency for wasteful consumption and the necessity of creating sound financial
institutions seemed to ring true.
Thorstein Veblen wrote in 1898 an article entitled "Why is Economics Not an
Evolutionary Science" and he became the precursor of current.
Wesley Mitchell
Wesley Clair Mitchell (1874–1948) was an American economist known for his empirical
work on business cycles and for guiding the National Bureau of Economic Research in its first
decades. Mitchell’s teachers included economists Thorstein Veblen and J. L. Laughlin and
philosopher John Dewey.
Clarence Ayres
Clarence Ayres (1891–1972) was the principal thinker of what some have called the
Texas school of institutional economics. Ayres developed on the ideas of Thorstein Veblen with
a dichotomy of "technology" and "institutions" to separate the inventive from the inherited
aspects of economic structures. He claimed that technology was always one step ahead of the
socio-cultural institutions.
New institutional economics
With the new developments in the economic theory of organizations, information,
property rights, and transaction costs, an attempt was made to integrate institutionalism into
more recent developments in mainstream economics, under the title new institutional economics.
Institutionalist political economy
The vacillations of institutions are necessarily a result of the very incentives created by such
institutions, and are thus endogenous. Emphatically, traditional institutionalism is in many ways
a response to the current economic orthodoxy; its reintroduction in the form of institutionalist
political economy is thus an explicit challenge to neoclassical economics, since it is based on the
fundamental premise that neoclassicists oppose: that economics cannot be separated from the
political and social system within which it is embedded.
Institutionalism Today
The earlier approach was a central element in American economics in the interwar years
after 1919, but was marginalized relative to mainstream economics in the postwar period with
the ascendence of neoclassical and Keynesian approaches. It continued, however, as a leading
heterodox approach in critiquing neoclassical economics and as an alternative research program
in economics, most notably through the work of Ha-Joon Chang and Geoffrey Hodgson.
Criticism
Critics of institutionalism have maintained that the concept of "institution" is so central
for all social science that it is senseless to use it as a buzzword for a particular theoretical school.
And as a consequence the elusive meaning of the concept of "institution" has resulted in a
bewildering and never-ending dispute about which scholars are "institutionalists" or not—and a
similar confusion about what is supposed to be the core of the theory. In other words,
institutional economics has become so popular because it means all things to all people, which in
the end of the day is the meaning of nothing.
New Institutional Economics
It iss an economic perspective that attempts to extend economics by focusing on the
social and legal norms and rules (which are institutions) that underlie economic activity and with
analysis beyond earlier institutional economics and neoclassical economics.
Overview
It has its roots in two articles by Ronald Coase, "The Nature of the Firm" (1937) and
"The Problem of Social Cost" (1960). In the latter, the Coase theorem (as it was subsequently
termed) maintains that without transaction costs, alternative property right assignments can
equivalently internalize conflicts and externalities. Thus, comparative institutional analysis
arising from such assignments is required to make recommendations about efficient
internalization of externalities and institutional design, including Law and Economics.
Analyses are now built on a more complex set of methodological principles and criteria.
They work within a modified neoclassical framework in considering both efficiency and
distribution issues, in contrast to "traditional," "old" or "original" institutional economics, which
is critical of mainstream neoclassical economics
The term 'new institutional economics' was coined by Oliver Williamson in 1975.[4]
Among the many aspects in current analyses are organizational arrangements (such as the
boundary of the firm), property rights,transaction costs,credible commitments, modes of
governance, persuasive abilities, social norms, ideological values, decisive perceptions, gained
control, enforcement mechanism, asset specificity, human assets, social capital, asymmetric
information, strategic behavior, bounded rationality, opportunism, adverse selection, moral
hazard, contractual safeguards, surrounding uncertainty, monitoring costs, incentives to collude,
hierarchical structures, and bargaining strength.
Major scholars associated with the subject include Armen Alchian, Harold Demsetz,
Steven N. S. Cheung, Avner Greif, Yoram Barzel, Claude Ménard (economist) and four Nobel
laureates—Ronald Coase, Douglass North, Elinor Ostrom Oliver Williamson, and Daron
Acemoglu. A convergence of such researchers resulted in founding the Society for Institutional
& Organizational Economics (formerly the International Society for New Institutional
Economics) in 1997.
Historical institutionalism
It is a new institutionalist social science method that uses institutions to find sequences of social,
political, economic behavior and change across time. It is a comparative approach to the study of
all aspects of human organizations and does so by relying heavily on case studies.
Applications
Institutionalism has a wide range of applications in political analysis and public policy. In this section we
briefly review how institutional analysis has been applied to studies of policy networks and state
capacity. Mention is also made of the institutional foundations of ‘varieties of capitalism’ and we also
look briefly at some of the practical public policy applications of institutionalism.
Party Institutionalism
Is an approach that sees political parties as having some capacities for adaptation, but
also sees them as being "prisoners of their own history as an institution". Aspects of the ideology
that a party had when it was founded, persists even though the conditions and the party-base in
society have changed. Scholars of this approach claim that the party's history determines how the
party adapts to modern day challenges.
Institutionalism (international relations)
In international relations, institutionalism comprises a group of differing theories on
international relations (IR). Functionalist and neofunctionalist approaches, regime theory, and
state cartel theory have in common their focus on the role of formal and informal rules, norms,
practices, and conventions for international politics.
Functionalist approaches
The functional theory of David Mitrany is the oldest institutional theory of IR. Mitrany
suggested that slim "functional agencies" should organize the needs of cooperation among even
conflicting states. The neofunctionalism and the communitarian method of Jean
Monnet advocated the principle of supranationality: international bodies superordinated to the
nation states should administer the common interests. The functionalist approaches have been
often criticized to be idealistic and normative in their positive view on international institutions.
Assessment Questions:
1. What are the concepts of Institutionalism?
2. What is the meaning of Institutionalism?
Activity:
Make a Reflection paper about “How do you define Institutionalism?” And “Why do you define
it like that?”.
MODULE IN DISCIPLINE
AND IDEAS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES
Submitted By: John Philip R. Venturina
(HUMSS 11-A)
Submitted To: Mr. Geronimo T. Sampilo
(DISS TEACHER)