華東師範大學 教育管理學系
教育管理与教育治理的实践基础 工作坊
第九、十講
社會制度：教育管理与治理的实践基础（四）
Social Institution: Practical Foundation of
Educational Management & Governance (4)
1
How to “Get Things Done” Effectively,
Publicly and Institutionally?
Herbert A. Simon stipulated that administration
is a practical science in search of a way “to get
things done.” (1945/1997, P. 1) In the
precedent lectures, we have examine ways
to get things done effectively. That is to plan and
execute the task in point according to the principles
of cognitive-instrumental rationality and the
imperatives of coercive power
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
…. a way “to get things done.” …
to get things done collectively and publicly. That is
in most of human projects and agencies, an
individual, no matter how rational (including
knowledgable) and capable he or she is, he/she
cannot have accomplished the project in point all by
him/herself. He/she need to collaborate with his/her
fellow humans to accomplish the task. Accordingly,
he/she must plan and execute the task at hand not
only in line with cognitive-instrumental rationality
but also comply with the principles of
communicative rationality. …..
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
…. a way “to get things done.” …
….. Furthermore, he/she must also follow the
imperatives of communicative power, and
reasonably and impartially design his/her project in
point in legitimate and just fashion.
However, the task of getting-things-done requires
another practical foundation, namely institution.
The way to get things done should not be in
accidental, idiosyncratic and ephemeral manner. It
must be carried out in regular, consistent,
continuous and predictable manner; in short, to get
things institutionally.
1st Order
2nd Order
3rd Order
Capacities of
delivering
mean-end
rational
effectiveness &
efficiency
Capacities of
building
regular,
continuous, &
resilient
institutional
rules
Capacities of
constituting
common
values, norms
& principles
for
legitimation
Foundation of
Rationality &
Power
Foundation of
Social
Institution
Foundation of
Public Reason
& Legitimation
Hierarchy
Market
Network
Community Network
Professional Network
Intergovernmental Network
Producer Network
Issue Network
Metagovernance
Interactive
Governance
Polycentric
Governance
New Public Service
5
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
To begin with, we may simply define social institution
as any human interactions which bear the features of
regularity, repetitiveness, endurance and resilience.
In light of this operational definition, we can see why
researchers from different disciplines in social
sciences have paid such consistent attentions to the
concept of institution. It is because enduring patterns
of human interactions, such as market, government,
state, dynasty, family, religion, ethnicity, nation, etc.
are the core subject matters of economics, political
science, sociology and anthropology.
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
In economics, Douglas North, the Nobel Laureate in
Economic Science in 1993, indicates, “Institutions are
rules of the game in a society or more formally, are
the humanly devised constraint that shape human
interaction. In consequence they structure incentives
in human exchange, whether political, social or
economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)
Douglas North
Nobel Lareate in
Economic Science in 1993
Nobel Laureate in
Economic Science in 1993
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
Elinor Ostrom, prominent political scientist and the
Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009, states,
“Broadly defined, institutions are the prescriptions
that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive
and structured interactions including those within
families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports
leagues, churches, private associations, and
government at all scales. Individuals interacting
within rule-structured situations face choices
regarding the actions and strategies they take,
leading to consequences for themselves and for
others." (Ostrom, 2005, P.3)
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
In political science and public administration, James
March and Johan Olsen, two prominent scholars in
public administration and political science, writes,
“An institution is a relatively enduring collection of
rules and organized practices, embedded in
structures of meaning and resources that are
relatively invariant in the face of turnover of
individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic
preferences and expectations of individuals and
changing external circumstances.” (March & Olsen,
2006, p.3) ….
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
…. According, the suggest that in institutions
“There are constitutive rules and practices prescribing
appropriate behavior for specific actors in specific situations.
There are structures of meaning, embedded in identities and
belongings: common purposes and accounts that give
direction and meaning to behavior, and explain, justify and
legitimate behavioral codes.
There are structures of resources that create capabilities for
action.” (ibid, my numbering)
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Conception of institution:
In sociology, Emile Durkheim, one of the founding
father of sociology writes, “Without doing violence to
the meaning of the word, one may term an institution
all the beliefs and modes of behaviour instituted by
the collectivity; sociology can then be defined as the
science of institutions, their genesis and their
functioning.” (1982/1895, P. 45)
1858-1917
How to “Get Things Done”
Effectively, Publicly and
Institutionally?
Taken together, in studying public
administration and policy, or more specifically,
educational management and governance, one
essential and necessary approach is to account
for how and why a particular mode of
governance could have endured through time
and prevailed against challenge and opposition,
in short, could have institutionalized.
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
 New institutionalism: As a theoretical perspective
emerged in different disciplines and fields in social
sciences since the 1980s, new institutionalism has
provide a system of conceptual and theoretical
apparatuses, which have laid a promising ground for
researchers to search for regularities and orders in
complex and transformational social world. As for the
field of public administration and policy, the perspective
of new institutionalism could shed light on the problem
of how to get things done in regular, consistent,
continuous and predictable bases; or more specifically
how can a particular mode of governance consolidate,
sustain, and institutionalized.
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
It was in 1984, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen
published an article entitled “The New Institutionalism:
Organizational Factors in Political Life” in The
American Political Science Review that the term “new
institutionalism” was coined. They underline that the
perspective of new institutionalism perspective is the
reaction to the prevailing perspectives in political
sciences in the 1960s and 70s. One is the “old
institutionalism” in point is that it focuses on studying
of the political institutions on formal-legal structure
and procedures of political institutions, such as the
legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
…..
The other perspective in point is the political behavior
approach, which applies the behaviorism in
psychology and concentrate on analyzing the political
behaviors of individual political actors, such as voters
and their voting behaviors. In reaction to these
perspectives, the new institutionalism focuses on the
political meanings, symbols and cultures that
constitute the regularity and durability underwriting
the political institution and its structures.
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
In economics, initiative of the new institutionalist
perspective is the reaction to the methodological
individualism found in economics, which manifest in
theories of rational choice of pure homo economicus
(economic man). In reaction to tis perspective, new
institutionalism put its emphasis on meanings,
identity and cultures underlying human behaviors and
choice (most notably Ostrom, 2014; and Sen, 1977).
….
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
…..
Hence, the new institutionalism reinstates the
methodological collectivism (or more specifically
methodological institutionalism) in economics by
accounting for economic actions with social units
such as firms, classes, status groups, ethnic groups,
nation, and in more general sense the commons.
Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009
Oliver E. Williamson & Elinor Ostrom
(1932(1933-2012)
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly
in reaction to the legal-rational system model
prevailing in organization studies and the structuralfunctionalism dominating the marco-sociological
studies, such as development studies. Based on the
social phenomenological perspective made popular
by Berger and Luckmann in their work The Social
Construction of Reality (1967), new institutionalists
emphasize the informal structure and culture of
organization and the subjectivity, definitions of
situations and roles, and identity underlying patterned
interactions and enduring practices. ….
Rediscovering Institutions:
The New-institutionalism
What so new about the new institutionalism?
In sociology, ….
In Berger and Luckmann’s terms, new institutionalist
approach the structure─agent dilemma in sociologcial
studies with a “dialectic” conception. That is society
is taken as both as objective and subjective reality
and these two realities are engaged in “an ongoing
dialectical process composed of the three moments of
externalization, objectivation, internalization.” (Berger
& Luckmann, 1967, p. 149)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor have distinguished three
perspectives in new institutionalism in political science:
 Historical Institutionalism:
 This perspective tends to see enduring human behavior-patterns
as outcomes evolve from specific historical and socio-economic
contexts. Hence “historical institutionalists tend to view have a
view of institutional development that emphasizes path
dependence and unintended consequences.” (P. 938)
 “Historical institutionalists define institution the formal or
informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions
embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political
economy. They can range from the rules of a conventional order
or the standard operating procedures of a bureaucracy to the
conventional governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm
relations.” (P. 938)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Historical Institutionalism: …
 “In this perspective, the individual is seen as an entity deeply
embedded in a world of institutions, composed of symbols,
scripts and routines, which provide the filters for interpretation,
of both the situation and oneself, out of which a course of action
is constructed. Not only do institutions provide strategicallyuseful information, they also affect the very identities, selfimages and preferences of the actions.” (p. 939)\
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Rational-choice institutionalism:
 “The rational choice institutionalists in political science drew
fruitful analytical tools from the ‘new economics of organization’,
which emphasizes the importance of property rights, rentseeking, and transactions costs, to the operation and
development of institutions. Especially influential was
Willamson’s argument that the particular organizational form can
be explained as the result of an effort to reduce the transaction
cost of undertaking the same activity without such as
institutions.” (P. 943)
 Rational-choice institutionalists “posit that the relevant actors
have a fixed set of preferences or tastes, …behave entirely
instrumentally so to maximize the attainment of these
preferences and do so in a highly strategic manner that
presumes extensive calculation.” (Pp. 944-945)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Rational-choice institutionalism:…
 “Rational-choice institutionalist tend to see politics as a series of
collective action dilemmas. The latter can be defined as
instances when individuals acting to maximizing the attainment
of their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is
collectively suboptimal. …Typically, what prevents the actors
from taking a collectively-superior course of action is absence of
institutional arrangements that would guarantee complementary
behaviour by others. Classic examples includes the ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’ and the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the political
situations present a varieties of such problems.” (P. 945)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Sociological institutionalism:
 "The sociological institutionalists tend to define
institutions …not just formal rules, procedures or norms, but the
symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that
provide the 'frames of meaning' guiding human action." (p. 948)
Accordingly, they "argue that many of the institutional forms and
procedures used by organizations were not adopted simply
because they were most efficient for the tasks at hand. …Instead,
they argued that many forms and procedures should be seen as
culturally-specific practices, akin to the myths and ceremonies
derived by many societies." (p. 947)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Sociological institutionalism: …
 To some sociologists of new institutionalism, individual actions
are construed as role performances or prescriptive norms of
behavior attached in particular institutional contexts. "In this
view, individuals who have been socialized into particular
institutional roles internalize the norms associated with these
roles, and in this way institutions are said to affect behaviour."
(P. 948) Furthermore, some sociological institutionalists
"emphasize the way in which institutions influence behaviour by
providing the cognitive scripts, categories and models that are
indispensable for action, not least because without them the
world and the behaviour of others cannot be interpreted.
Institutions influence behaviour not simply by specifying what
one should do but also by specifying what one can imagine
oneself in a given context." (p. 948)
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor …
 Sociological institutionalism: …
 One of the distinctive features of the sociological institutionalism
is the explanation it offered for the endurance of institutional
practices. Instead of accounting them for rational-choices out of
game situations or traditional "dependent paths" inherited from
the past, sociologists in new institutionalism strive to reveal the
legitimate bases from which reciprocal practices among social
actors derived and consensual arrangements among reasonable
agents endure.
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Normative Institutionalism: More recently, B. Guy Peters
(2005) argue that “the root of the new institutionalism”
is founded in what called “normative institutionalism”.
Peters suggests that one of the basis of the endurance,
resilience, and persistence of patterned actions found
among a definite group of people, i.e. the institution, is
the sense of appropriateness, righteousness,
legitimation, and duty and calling, which are planted
deeply in sense and minds of the designated group of
persons…
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 Normative Institutionalism: …
He argues that it is this “principle of appropriateness”
(March, 1989) which motivate persons in particular roles
in the respective institutions to perform the prescribed
duties against all odds even in views of scarifying their
own lives, such as firemen, civil soldiers, etc. It is this
deep sense of moral appropriateness which lends an
institution its endurance, resilience and persistence
across space and time.
The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
 John Campbell has further made categorizations of
perspectives in new institutionalism as follow
Source: Campbell 2004, P. 1
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution: James G. March and
Johan P. Olsen, professors of political science, coin the
concept of New Institutionalism in an article published in
The American Political Science Review in 1984. In that
article they have also injected a typology of “institutional
order”, which has moved the institutional order analysis
beyond the two conventional explanation, namely order
by hierarchical-organization and order by competition
and coercion. (March & Olen, 1984, P. 743)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders: To advance beyond the
orders by hierarchical organization and by competition and
coercion, March and Oslen suggest that new institutionalism
can add in another six other types of institutional orders:
Historical order: …
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Historical order: It refers to the essential concept of “the
efficiency of historical processes” in new institutionalism. By
efficiency of historical process, it refers to the way in which
history moves quickly and inexorably to a unique outcome,
normally in some sense an optimum.” (March & Olsen, 1984, p.
743) Accordingly, the internal order of an institution will be
constrained by the particular period in history and the
institutional order will strive hard to maintain a condition of
optimum with its historical order. However, there may be
situations in which the institutional order is lagging behind the
transformation of the historical order, As a result, it will cause
what March and Oslen called “inefficiency of history”.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Temporal order: The concept is specifically coined by March and
Oslen to stand against the concept of “causal order”, which is
commonly used in theoretical perspective of means-ends
rational actions and the methodological approach of positivistic
deduction. March and Oslen suggest, “Temporal order provides
an alternative in which linkages are less consequential than
temporal. Things are connected by virtue of their simultaneous
presence or arrivals. …In many human situations (such as
institution) the most easily identified property of objects or
events in the time subscripts associated with them.” (March &
Oslen, 1984, P. 743) For example, in educational institutions
things are mostly specified by their temporal orders, such as
year of graduation of students, year of publication of books,
examination year, school terms, etc.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Endogenous orders: In response to the exogenous order
commonly applied by conventional studies of political science in
accounting for institutional changes, perspective of new
institutionalism look into the endogenous order espoused within
the internal mechanism of a social institution, such as shift in
preferences and values among significant participants within an
institution, upset of balance of power within an institution,
unanticipated consequences espoused from conventional path
of dependence in an institutional context, etc.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Normative orders: In reaction to the permeation of the theory
rational choice and self-interest politics in political research,
March and Oslen underline that “action is often more on
discovering the normatively appropriate behavior than on
calculating the return expected from alternative choice.” (March
& Olsen, 1984, P. 744) Accordingly, March and Oslen have
coined yet another mostly-used concept in new institutionalism,
namely “logic of appropriateness” (in contrast with the “logic of
consequentiality”) (March & Oslen, 1989, Pp. 23-24)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Demographic order: Social institutions can also be reviewed by
looking into the demographic features of the incumbents of key
positions or simple members of the organization. March and
Oseln suggest that “” a human institution can be studied and
interpreted as the cross-section of the lives of the people
involved. …A focus on institutional demography combines such
a version of organized life with attention to a property of
individual live that is itself a product of the institutional structure
─ the individual career.” (March & Oslen, 1984, P. 744)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Six types of institutional orders:
Symbolic order: March and Oslen underlines that “Symbols
permeate politics in a subtle and diffuse way, providing
interpretive coherence to political life.”(1984, P. 744) Hence, they
suggest that in accounting for the enduring order of an
institution, we should pay particular “attention to the ordering
force of symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and drama in
political life.” (1984, P. 744) In one of the pioneer works on new
institutionalist study of education, Meyer and Rowan (1977)
argues that the institutional structures and organizations in
modern schooling systems are products of the “ordering
forces” of the myth and ideology of the modernization and
rationalization project orchestrated by modern states.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Logic of appropriateness: March and Olsen have
subsequently developed their perspective of newinstitutionalism in series of work, (most notably 1989 &
1995). In those work, they have developed the conceptual
dichotomy, namely the logic of consequentiality and the
logic of appropriateness.
“In logic of consequentiality, behavior are driven by
preferences and expectations about consequences. Behavior
is willful, reflecting an attempt to make outcome fulfill
subjective desires, to the extent possible. Within such a logic,
a sane person is one who is ‘in touch with reality’ in the
sense of maintaining consistency between behavior and
realistic expectations of its consequences.” (March & Oslen,
1989, P. 160)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Logic of appropriateness: …
…
In a logic of appropriateness,…behavior (beliefs as well as
action) are intentional but not willful. They involve fulfilling of
obligations of a role in a situation, and so of trying to
determine the imperatives of holding a position. Action stems
from a conception of necessity, rather than preference. Within
the logic of appropriateness, a sane person is one who is ‘in
touch with identity’ in the sense of maintaining consistency
between behavior and a conception of self in a social role.”
(1989, P. 160-161)
March and Oslen has written two “litanies for action” to
illustrate the differences between these two logic
Anticipatory Action
(Logic of Consequentiality)
Obligatory Action
(Logic of Appropriateness)
1. What are my alternatives? 1.What kind of a situation is
this?
2. What are my values?
2. Who am I?
3. What are the
3. How appropriate are
consequences of my
different actions for me in
alternatives for my values? this situation?
4. Choose the alternative
that has the best
consequences.
4. Do what is appropriate
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Conceptions of rules, role and identity
In light of the conception of the logic of appropriateness,
March and Oslen further develop a conceptual framework
to account for political and social actions within the
institutional context. To March and Oslen, political and
social actions are not solely derived from self-interest
calculations and anticipation of consequences, instead
actions should be allocated “within a broader framework of
rules, roles, and identity.” (March & Oslen, 1995, P.29; see
also Pp. 49-89)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Conceptions of rules, role and identity
Rules: In new institutionalist perspective, rules are not simply
construed as formal regulations governing actions of
members of an institution. They are further defined as
identifications, interpretations, evaluation, and believes that
members of an institution attribute to these regulations and
their actual enforcements.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Conceptions of rules, role and identity
….
Roles: Within a particular set of rules, an individual will
define what he/she is expected to do or not to do within that
specific “rule set” i.e. “situation”. In short, he/she should
define his/her roles in accordance with the rules found in the
situation. However, an individual is not free to define his/her
role and its sequent performance as he/she pleased. He/she
have to negotiate, balance and practice with his/her rolepartners and hopefully be able to settle in with a “routine”. As
a result, in each rule set, a respective set of rights and
obligations will emerge and subsequently routinized.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Conceptions of rules, role and identity
….
Identity: As incumbent of a role has got used to or even felt
committed to the respective role performances, he/she will
have forged an identity with the respective role. In other
words, the role and its subsequent obligations and duties will
have become part of his/her own self.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 March & Olsen’s contribution:
Conceptions of rules, role and identity
….
To March and Oslen, institutional endurance should not be
attributed simply to the capability and efficiency of the
institutional structure in enforcing the formal regulations
upon members of an institution. Instead, we should also
look into subjective meanings attribute to rules and role
ascriptions at work within the institution. Furthermore, we
should reveal the identity and commitment that members
have pledged to their institution.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
In the 1960s, Alfred Schutz’s The Phenomenology of the
Social World was translated and published in English
(1967, the German edition was published in 1933) and
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann also published their
work The Construction of Reality (1966). These two
works has elaborated the conceptions of institution and
institutionalization significantly.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
The concept of institutionalization: Peter Berger and Thomas
Luckmann follow Schutz’s conceptions has defines that
“institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal
typiifcation of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put
differently, any such typification is an institution. What must be
stressed is the reciprocity of institutional typifications and the
typicality of not only the actions but the actors in institution. The
typifications of habitualized actions that constitute institutions
are always shared ones. They are available to all members of the
particular social group in question, and the institution itself
typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.” (Berger &
Luckmann, 1966, p. 72)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Externalization and objectivities of social institutions: These
typified and habitualized social actions in the forms of social
routines among specific human groups will in time be
externalized and objectivated into “social facts”. They will in turn
impose social constraints upon the subjectivities and agencies
of individual, which were once the “geneses” of the objective
social facts. As a result, social institutions gain their objectivity
and become the main parts of the social world.
Formalization and regularization of social structure: These
objective social facts, in the forms of social constraints, will in
time be formalized and regularized into social structure. They
may be conceived as social organizations, institutions, system,
etc. These objectively existing social structures will constitute
the main bloc of the social world.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Internalization of the social structure: The objective social world
with its social structure will in turn be internalized by new
members of the respective human aggregates, by means of
socialization, formal education and social control.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Role and identity: Accordingly the sociological concept role can
be defined as a typification that has been formalized and
regularized in a particular situation. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966,
P. 91) For example the roles of teachers and students in the
situation of classroom, doctor and patients in the situation of
clinic and/or hospital. And the outcome of socialization is to
internalize the role expectation and role performance of a
particular role. As a role, with its expectation and performance,
has been internalized to the extent that the individual in point has
made them as his own i.e. the role expectation and performance
are parts of his own self. As a result, it constitutes an identity.
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966, P. 151)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Reproduction of the social structure: The objectivity of the social
structure will gain its continuity and consistence unless it can
successfully reproduce itself to the coming generations. In
Berger and luckmann’s own world, "One may further add that
only with the transmission of the social world to a new
generation … does the fundamental social dialectic appear in its
totality. To repeat, only with the appearance of the new
generation can one properly speak of a social world." (Berger &
Luckmann, 1966, p. 79)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Legitimation: Apart from the formal structural aspect of the
institution and institutionalization, Berger and Luckmann have
also analyzed the normative base of social institution. Berger
and Luckmann build this normative base on the conception of
legitimation. Accroding to Berger and Luckmann’s
conceptualization, legitimation is “best described as a ’secondorder’ objectivation of meaning.” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p.
110) That is, if meanings are externalized, objectivated and
typified through continuous human interactions and practices in
the first place, they further need the “second” round of meaningendowing efforts in order to be formally institutionalized within a
given society
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Legitimation: ….
Berger and Luckmann suggest that there are mainly two way to
establish legitimation in institutional context:
Explanation of cognitive validity: “Legitimation ‘explains’ the
institutional order by ascribing cognitive validity to its objectivated
meaning. …It always implies ‘knowledge’. ” (1966, p. 111)
Justification of normative dignity: “Legitimation justifies the
institutional order by given normative dignity to its practical
imperatives. ….Legitimation is …a matter of ‘value’.” (1966, p. 111)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 The Social Phenomenology contribution
Sedimentation: The cultural legitimation constituted with social
institutions will accumulate its validity and dignity over time.
Berger and Luckmann have called the process sedimentation.
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966, P. 87) As a result, the whole
enterprise of institutionalization will consolidate into “tradition”.
Formalization/ Regularization
Externalization/ Objectivation
Habitualization/ Routinization
Typiciation
Interaction
Sedimentation/ Tradition
Culture
(Society as
Subjective
Reality)
Legitimation
Reproduction
Role & Identity
Socialization/ Internalization
Institutionalization
Structure
(Society as
Objective
Reality)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 Institutional economists’ contribution
One of the classical scenarios in rational-choice theory in
economics is the tragedy of the common, which stipulate that
there will be detrimental effect for all if every participants pursue
their “rent-seeking” project” and maximize that gains at the
expenses of the “common”. New-institutionalists in economics
have rendered a resolution, which Ostrom characterizes “the
governance of the commons” or the Institutional Analysis and
Development (IAD) model.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 Institutional economists’ contribution
Definition of institution: For economists in newinstitutionalist perspective, if the rules of the game have
been adequately stipulated the rent-seeking actions and
the tragedy of the commons could be resolved.
Accordingly, they define the rule of the game as institution.
Douglas North, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in
1993, writes, “institutions are rules of the game in a society or
more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape
human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives
in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.”
(North, 1990, p. 3)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 Institutional economists’ contribution
Definition of institution:
...
Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in
2009, also suggests, “Broadly defined, institutions are the
prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of
repetitive and structured interactions including those within
families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues,
churches, private associations, and government at all scales.
Individuals interacting within rule-structured situations face
choices regarding the actions and strategies they take,
leading to consequences for themselves and for others."
(Ostrom, 2005, P.3)
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 Institutional economists’ contribution
Definition of institution:
...
Accordingly, one of the primary focuses of institutional
analysis and development is to design and implement the
adequate kind of “rule configuration”, which generally
consists of seven types of rules governing seven aspects of
the IAD model.
Taking together the economists contributions, they have
rendered yet another explanatory account for the constitution of
institutions in competitive situations among rational actors or
even rent seekers.
Why is institution possible? Accounting for
the Institutional Endurance
 Institutional economists’ contribution
Definition of institution:
...
Accordingly, one of the primary focuses of institutional
analysis and development is to design and implement the
adequate kind of “rule configuration”, which generally
consists of seven types of rules governing seven aspects of
the IAD model.
Taking together the economists contributions, they have
rendered yet another explanatory account for the constitution of
institutions in competitive situations among rational actors or
even rent seekers.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Richard Scott’s conception of pillars of institution: Richard
Scott, professor of sociology in Stanford university, has
published one of the most popular text on social
institutions. The book has extended to its fourth edition
since 1995 (1995; 2014) ….
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Richard Scott’s conception of pillars of institution: ….
One of the most oft-quoted conception is the three pillars of
institution. The concept has provided a framework to
account for the enduring order constituted in institutional
context.
Scott defines institution that “Institutions consist of
cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities
that provide stability and meaning to social behavior.
Institutions are transported by various carries ── cultures,
structures, and routines ── and they operate at multiple
levels of jurisdiction.” (Scott, 1995, p.33)
Scott has summarized the differences between these pillars
as follows.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Concept of path dependence: Apart from the features of
endurance, institutionalists have also rendered
explanation for the continuity of institutional features over
time. Paul Pierson has put forth the concept of path
dependence
Path dependence indicates that “once a country or region has
started down a track, the costs of reversal are very high. There
will be other choice points, but the entrenchments of certain
institutional arrangements obstruct an easy reversal of the
initial choice. Perhaps the better metaphor is a tree, rather than
a path. From the same trunk, there are many different branches
and smaller branches. Although it is possible to turn around or
to clamber from one to the other ─ and essential if the chosen
branch dies ─ the branch on which a climber begins is the one
she tends to follow. (Levi, 1997; quoted in Pierson, 2004, p. 20)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Concept of path dependence:
….
Simply put, path dependence refers “to social possesses that
exhibit positive feedback and thus generate branching patterns
of historical development.” (ibid, p.21)
Accounting for path dependence (ibid, p. 24)
• Large set-up or fixed cost: “When setup or fixed costs are high,
individuals and organizations have a strong incentive identify and
stick with a single option.”
• Learning effects: “Knowledge gained in the operation of complex
systems also leads to higher returns from continuing use.”
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Concept of path dependence:
Accounting for path dependence (ibid, p. 24)
• ….
• Coordination effects: “These occur when the benefits an individual
receives from a particular activity increase as other adopt the
option. If technologies embody positive network externalities, a
given technology will become more attractive as more people use
it. Coordination effects are especially significant when a technology
has to be compatible with an infrastructure (e.g. software with
hardware, automobiles with an infrastructure of roads, repair
facilities and fueling stations).”
• Adaptive expectations: “It derives from the self-fulfilling character
of expectations. Projections about future aggregate use pattern
lead individuals to adapt their actions in way that help to make
those expectations come true.”
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of isomorphism: Apart from accounting for
the feature of endurance and continuity, institutionalists
has also provided explanatory account for the institutional
features of community, and to a less extent
standardization and formalization among organizations in
the same institutional context.
Concept of isomorphism: New institutionalists stipulate that
organizations in modern rational institutional environment
and/or organizational field tend to develop similar structures,
procedures and practices (organizational elements in Meyer &
Rowan's terminology). They term this process of
homogenization of organization isomorphism. "Isomorphism
is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population
to resemble other units that face the same set of
environmental conditions." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of isomorphism: ….
Distinction between competitive and institutional
isomorphism: DiMaggio & Powell (1991) and Meyer & Rowan
(1991) have made similar distinctions between competitive
and institutional isomorphism.
• By competitive isomorphism, it refers to the process of
homogenization of organizations taken place in "those field
which free and open competition exists." (DiMaggio & Powell,
1991, p.66) Organizations in these fields usually possess
"clearly defined technologies to produce outputs" and therefore
those "outputs can be easily evaluated" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991,
p. 54) As a result, development of common organizational
elements, i.e. isomorphism, can be attained through market
competition, competitive niche, standardized output
performance and organizational efficiency. (DiMaggio & Powell,
1991, p. 66)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of isomorphism: ….
Distinction between competitive and institutional
isomorphism: ….
• By institutional isomorphism, it refers to the process of
homogenization of organizations invoked in the context of
"collective organized society" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) in
which institutional environment of modern bureaucratic states
have replaced market mechanism to act as institutional rules of
the field. As a result, in institutional organizations, the
development of common organizational elements can not be
attain by market competition and internal efficiency, instead
"they incorporate elements which are legitimated externally"
and "they employ external or ceremonial assessment criteria to
define the value of structural elements." (Meyer & Rowan, 1991,
p. 49) …..
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of isomorphism: ….
Distinction between competitive and institutional
isomorphism: ….
• By institutional isomorphism, …..
"For example, American schools have evolved from producing
rather specific training that was evaluate according to strict
criteria of efficiency to producing ambiguously defined services
that are evaluated according to criteria of certification." (Meyer
& Rowan, 1991, p. 55)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
DiMaggio & Powell identify three mechanism through which
institutional isomorphism are achieved, maintained or
changed. The thesis can be taken as analysis apparatus to
study how schools, as institutional organization, adopt to
education policy changes.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Coercive isomorphism: "Coercive isomorphism results from
both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations
by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by
cultural expectations in the society within which
organizations function. Such pressures may be felt as force,
as persuasion, or as invitations to join in collusion."
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 67)
Organizational restructures undertaken by HK schools in
response to Quality-Assurance Inspection, School Self
Evaluation, External School Review, Senior-Secondary
Curriculum reform, School-based Management and
Incorporated Management Committee, etc. may be analyze in
light of the concept of coercive isomorphism.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Mimetic isomorphism: Apart from coercive authority,
"uncertainty is also a powerful force that encourages
imitation. When organizational technologies are poorly
understood, when goals are ambiguous, or when the
environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may
model themselves on other organization." (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 69)
Confronted by collective puzzlement in policy implementation,
such as those initiated by Senior-Secondary curriculum
reform or more specifically the teaching of Liberal Studies, or
School-Self Evaluation, most HK schools could only imitate,
model or simply copy from other schools.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
Mechanism of institutional isomorphism
Normative isomorphism: Instead of compliance with modern
institutional environments of competitive market or
bureaucratic-rational state, isomorphism may take the form of
professionalization. Organizations and their operations,
which are predominately identified with a profession, such as
hospitals with doctors and schools with teachers, can
incorporate cognitive, normative and regulative bases of that
profession into their organizations and apply them as criteria
in assessing the performance as well and legitimation bases
of their organization.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: New institutionalism at
interpersonal level:
In recent years sociologists have initiated concepts such as
social network and social capital to depict the enduring
interpersonal relationship in institutional context. For
example Lin conceptualizes that "social capital as …is rooted
in social network and social relations, and must be measured
relative to its roots. Therefore social capital can be defined as
resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed
and/or mobilized in purposive action." (Lin, 2001, p.12)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: ….
Homophily: Lin further specifies that one of the structural
foundations of social capital is the principle of homophily.
"The principle of homophily, also known as the like-me
hypothesis, is that social interactions tend to take place
among individuals with similar lifestyles and socioeconomic
characteristics." (Lin, 2001a, p. 39) Lin's the principle of
homophily basically echoes Berger and Luckmann's
indication that identity as the basis of "reciprocal typification
of habitualized action" in institutional setting.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: ….
Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four
sources from which enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e.
social capitals, are constituted.
• Value introjection: It refers to "moral character" and "value
imperatives" individuals learned in the process of socialization.
(Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1998, p. 129) This resource is
basically in congruent with Beger and Luckmann's conception
of internalization in the process of institutionalization at
individual level.
• Reciprocity transactions: It "consists of an accumulation of
'chits' earned through previous good deeds to others, backed by
the norm of reciprocity." In comparison with value introjection,
in this type of social capital "individuals are not expected to
behave according to a higher group morality but rather to pure
selfish end." (p. 130)
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: ….
….four sources …...
• Bounded solidarity: It refers to social capitals invoke from
"situational circumstances leading to the emergence of
principled group-orientated behavior. …Its classic sources are
best exemplified by Marx and Engels's analysis of the rise of
proletarian consciousness and the transformation of workers
into class for themselves." (p. 130)
This type of collective sentiments grown out of common (usually
socially inferior) situations can also be found in unions, minority
groups, etc.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: ….
….four sources …...
• Enforceable trust: It refers of social capitals grown out of
community, in which "particularistic rewards and sanctions" are
enforceable on its members in the form of collective expectation
and trusts. This type of social capitals may manifest in informal
institutional settings such as peer group pressures or solidarity
within new immigrant communities or in formal institutional
setting such as community sanction in professional
associations.
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of
Institutional Effects: Why Institutions
Endure?
 Institutional sociologists’ contribution
The concept of social capital: ….
….four sources …...
• Enforceable trust: It refers of social capitals grown out of
community, in which "particularistic rewards and sanctions" are
enforceable on its members in the form of collective expectation
and trusts. This type of social capitals may manifest in informal
institutional settings such as peer group pressures or solidarity
within new immigrant communities or in formal institutional
setting such as community sanction in professional
associations.
Why Institutional Changes
Identifying types of institutional changes
Categorization of institutional changes
Evolutionary or incremental changes: It has been signified
within the perspective that "Institutions are sticky and prone
to inertia and, as a result, change quite gradually." Hence,
changes undertaken by institutions have commonly been
characterized as evolutionary changes. By evolutionary
changes, it refers to "continuous change that proceeds in
small, incremental steps along a single path in certain
direction." (Campbell, 2004, p. 33)
Why Institutional Changes
Identifying types of institutional changes
Categorization of institutional changes…
Revolutionary changes or punctuated equilibrium: Despite
the institutional inertia and resistance to change, "some
scholars recognize, nonetheless, that relatively rapid and
profound institutional change does occur sometimes. They
often describe this discontinuous pattern of change as
punctuated equilibrium." (Campbell, 2004, p. 34)
Why Institutional Changes
Identifying types of institutional changes
Categorization of institutional changes…
Punctuated evolution: Some scholars further specify that
"The periods of equilibrium occurring between punctuations
are better characterized as evolutionary rather than static."
Hence, they prefer to characterize change in institutions as
punctuated evolution. That is, there are evolutionary changes
in terms of self reflection and social learning within periods of
equilibrium and equilibrium may be "punctuated occasionally
by crises that involve open struggle over the very core of the
institutional status quo and the eventually result in truly
fundamental institutional transformation." (p. 34)
Why Institutional Changes
Identifying types of institutional changes
Identifying the dimensions of changes
Scott’s conception of three pillars
• Changes in regulative dimension of pillars
• Changes in normative dimension of institutions
• Changes in cognitive dimension of institutions
Levels of abstraction
•
•
•
•
•
•
World systemic level
Societal level
Discursive level
Organizational level
Interactive level
Individual cognitive level
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes: John Campbell (2004)
has stipulated the causal mechanism accounting for
institutional changes as follows
 Negative feedbacks and critical junctures on dependence path:
As indicated above the maintaining and sustaining of
institutional patterns depends on the continuous feedbacks
from the prevailing "dependence path" of the institution.
(Pierson, 2004) However, as negative feedbacks from the
dependence path appear and subsequently accumulated to a
critical point. It may then trigger fundamental changes in
institution. (Campbell, 2004, p.65-68)
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes:
 Bricolage: It refers to innovations in combining existing
repertoire of institutional principles and practices so as to
solve crises or dilemma confronting an institution. (Campbell,
2004, p. 69) According to March and Olsen's conception,
bricolage can be categorized into
 Substantive bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of wellestablished technical principles or practices within an institution
in order to bring about adjustment or fundamental change.
 Symbolic bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of
normative and cognitive principles and practices so as to
reconcile normative or cognitive conflicts invoked by changes.
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes:
 The role of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs: The
conception of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs can
specify the agent of change in the causal explanation of
institutional changes. The performance entrepreneurs depend
basically on two factors, namely their connectivity within the
institution and the availability of repertoires to be combined.
As Campbell indicates "entrepreneurs with more diverse
social, organizational, and institutional connections tends to
have more expansive repertoires with which to work. In turn,
the broader their repertoire, the more likely they are to create a
bricolage that is very creative and revolutionary rather than
one that is less creative and evolutionary, (Campbell, 2004,
p.75)
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes:
 Diffusion, translation and enactment:
 Changes in punctuated equilibrium may not be invoked by
bricoleurs from within an institution. It may be triggered by input
from other institutions. In other words, institutional innovation or
changes may diffuse and circulated among institutions. Hence,
institutional changes can be copies and learnt.
 However, input of changes or innovations from outside will not
be copied automatically and totally by a given institution. They
must be translated and innovatively combined with existing
principles and practice.
 Finally, in order for any principles and practice input from
without to substantiate within a given institution, they must be
internalized cognitively or normatively by members of the
institution to become part of their daily routines and practice. In
other words, changes have to be enacted by members on daily
basis.
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes:
 Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changes
 In accounting for institutional changes, new institutionalists play
particular attentions to how agents accept (interpret, identify,
internalize, enact, etc.) new ideas and in turn make changes in
their practices, i.e. agencies.
 Typology of ideas about institutional change: Campbell has
constructed a framework to classify ideas into paradigms, public
sentiments, programs and frames.
Why Institutional Changes
 Explaining institutional changes:
 Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changes
 Typology of actors and their ideational roles: According to the
classification of ideas, Campbell has further differentiated actors
within an institution into five ideational roles
Social Institutionalism: In Summary
Social institution as human relationship & interaction of regularity, continuity,
endurance, & resilience
Old Institutionalism focuses on
- Organizational structure &
procedure;
- Formal regulation & law;- Hierarchical or market order
New Institutionalism focuses on
- Typification, habitualization,
externalization, objectivation, reproduction,
legitimation,
sedimentation, …institutionalization
- Rules, role & identity;
- Historical, temporal, endogenous,
normative, demographic, & symbolic
- Logic of appropriateness
- Game theory, transaction cost, &
governing of the common (IAD model)
- Cognitive, normative & regulative pillars;
- Isomorphism;
- Path dependence;
- Social Capital
1st Order
2nd Order
3rd Order
Capacities of
delivering
mean-end
rational
effectiveness &
efficiency
Capacities of
building
regular,
continuous, &
resilient
institutional
rules
Capacities of
constituting
common
values, norms
& principles
for
legitimation
Foundation of
Rationality &
Power
Foundation of
Social
Institution
Foundation of
Public Reason
& Legitimation
Hierarchy
Market
Network
Community Network
Professional Network
Intergovernmental Network
Producer Network
Issue Network
Metagovernance
Interactive
Governance
Polycentric
Governance
New Public Service
2nd Order
Hierarchy
Market
Network
Community Network
Professional Network
Intergovernmental Network
Producer Network
Issue Network
Metagovernance
Interactive
Governance
Polycentric
Governance
New Public Service
Capacities of building regular, continuous, &
resilient institutional rules
Social institution as human relationship & interaction of
regularity, continuity, endurance, & resilience
Old Institutionalism
focuses on
- Organizational structure
& procedure;
- Formal regulation & law;- Hierarchical or market
order
New Institutionalism focuses on
- Typification, habitualization,
externalization, objectivation,
reproduction, legitimation,
sedimentation, …institutionalization
- Rules, role & identity;
- Historical, temporal, endogenous,
normative, demographic, &
symbolic
- Logic of appropriateness
- Game theory, transaction cost, &
governing of the common (IAD
model)
- Cognitive, normative & regulative
pillars;
- Isomorphism;
- Path dependence;
- Social Capital
110
Democratic (Communicative) Governance
in Institutional Perspective: A Synthesis of
the Workshop
In light of the various theoretical perspectives
and conceptual tools reviewed in the precedent
ten lectures, we may synthesize them into a
theory of democratic governance (March &
Oslen, 1995; Bevir, 2010) or communicative
governance (Habermas, 1996)
Communicative Rationality
Communicative Action
Empowering
Communicative Power
Activating
Legitimation through Public Reasoning of
Fairness, Reciprocity, Impartiality, i.e. Justice
Sedimentation, Institutionalization
Communicative Institution
Rules,
Regulations, & Laws
Rules, roles & identities of the
governors; e.g. legislators,
administrators,
& judiciaries…; educational
officials, principals, teachers,
Roles: Definitions of rights &
Obligations of roles
& Mutual expectations of rolepartners
Communicative
Governance and
Democratic
Governance
Identities (Internalizing
role performance as part
of one’s own self
Rules, roles & identities of
the governed;
e.g. citizens;
principals, teachers,
parents, students
第九、十講
社會制度：教育管理与治理的实践基础（四）
END