History of Sociological Institutionalism

The social institutionalism is a type of institutionalism which deals with the meanings for certain individuals are created by various institutions. Such a meaning is of significance to the political science due to its application in the building of blocks for the normative institutionalism. It came as a result of the organization theory field. It arose in the late 1970s from the organizational theory and this was against the means end rationality in the particular organization. Further, it consisted of constitutive features existing between the individual and institutions actions. The sociological institutionalism is also considered to be part of the new institutionalism which contains an understanding of the various institutions in matters related to social processes. Unlike the old institutionalism which was of the idea that there are numerous attitudes which different actors can select from. The sociological institutionalism, however, came up with the idea of the logic of appropriateness which was under the influence of sociology of organizations.

The sociological institutionalism originated from various elements such as the cultural studies, anthropology, sociology, and organizational theory. The main focus of the above mentioned institutionalism on the institutional cultures. According to the founders of the sociological institutionalism, the rules, structures, and norms of the various institutions are determined by the surrounding culture of the particular organization and this is unlike the old institutionalism which emphasizes that such issues are mainly dictated by the levels of efficiency within the organization (Sorensen, 2015 p.25). Also, the sociological institutionalism tends to look into the questions relating to the cultural and social legitimacy of the particular organization including the key participants of that organization.

There are a variety of features of sociological institutionalism and this makes it different from the new institutionalism. According to the sociological institutionalism, the institutions are as considered as a system which typically includes, the moral templates, cognitive scripts and symbol systems and this is unlike the political scientists who consider institutions as norms, rules, and procedures (Healey, 2018 p.55). Therefore there is a wide division between culture and institutions. Culture under this type of institutionalism is redefined in the institutions. It is, therefore, a reflection of the cognitive turn in sociology and culture is therefore associated with attitudes and values which are effective.

The other feature of the sociological institutionalism is on the relationship existing between the individual and institution actions. In the above mentioned feature, the impact of institutions on behavior is taken into consideration such that it is argued that the institutions tend to influence behavior. Such an influence is based on the provision of certain models and cognitive scripts which helps in the interpretation of the behavior of various individuals in the world. Also, based on the feature it is argued that the influence of institutions on behavior only on what a person should do but instead it also gives specification on what an individual can imagine to do (Trampusch, 2014 p.335). Further, the relationship between the individual and institution action are considered to be highly interactive and thus it is part of the relationship. The individuals are considered as social actors and this is on the basis of acting as social convention specifies.

Features of Sociological Institutionalism

Another key feature of sociological institutionalism is based on the change and origination of institutional practices. On the basis of the above mentioned feature, the sociological institutionalism argues that the reason for the adoption of a new institutional practice by most of the institutions is to improve on the social legitimacy of the particular organizations. The different institutional practices which are often adopted by organizations because such practices are valued and this is usually in the cultural environment. However, in certain circumstances, the adopted institutional practices could be dysfunctional and this is especially in relation to the attainment of the formal goals of the particular organization.

Healey (2018 p.55), argues that the sociological institutionalism typically provides an overview of the world and this also includes the knowledge on the relationship between the objects (epistemology) and the subjects. It has therefore been applied in the social construction of reality. It is on that basis that the individual’s conscience happens and this is usually in a subjective manner via an interaction of various institutional processes considered as complex. Additionally, it has been used in the determination of the legitimacy of any particular organization and this is on the basis of the practices and structures of the particular organization which is referred to as the social legitimacy. The sociological institutionalism also provides certain key contributions in relation to the study of the expression of social values by different organizations.

Generally, the various rationales are typically sustained by both the institutional and technical environments. The institutional environment, for example, aids in providing legitimacy to a particular organization and this is because it is considered a rational action in the form of a procedure (Laursen, 2016 p.30). The technical environment, on the other hand, allows various organizations to become efficient and also be in a position of producing certain goods and services which are acceptable in the market and hence by the customers.The acceptance of the goods and services which are efficiently produced will typically enable a particular organization to attain most of its goals.

Apart from the above mentioned uses of the sociological institutionalism, the other use relates to the reinforcement and strengthening of the organizational structures. Such a reinforcement and strengthening of such structures entails the establishment of various rules and later monitoring them with the aim that they are complied with. At certain times, such rules can be manipulated with the intention of influencing certain future behavior (Ohanyan, 2015 p.120). The normative part of the institutionalism, for example, focuses on the rules which guide organizations and this it does through an emphasis on the obligatory and evaluative aspect of the social life. The norms and values typically make up the normative systems. The norms are certain key elements which indicate how various things should be done and this entails the definition of the meanings of values which are legitimized. The values on the other hand, generally stipulate that which is desirable and this is done in consolidation with the standards constructed and later compared with the behaviors or even structures existing.

How Sociological Institutionalism is Used

There is also the other pillar called the cultural cognitive pillar of the sociological institutionalism. Such a pillar mainly focuses on the interaction and existence of various actors. The comprehension of each of the actors makes up the structures of cognitive and this is usually through the understanding of social reality. The various subjective interpretations of different actors in the environment are typically based on a variety of social roles. The features of social roles usually vary on the basis of space and time. The above mentioned aspect is also considered to be one of the leading uses of the sociological institutionalism (Panov, 2015 p.40). Additionally, the sociological institutionalism is also used as a guidance of the behavior of different actors in various organizational institutions. It attains that through the prediction of the different values and norms in different institutions. It is from such values and norms which the different actions of the actors will be shaped (Risse, 2016 p.280). Some of the actors include the public agencies tasked with the formulation of various policies which should be typically friendly to the particular society. Further, such actors tend to promote certain values and interests in the community and this, therefore, helps in maintain moral behavior.

 The development of different organization can be attributed to the sociological institutionalism and this has been attributed to the fact that it takes into account the learning process and the various models of an institution which often undergo certain changes. The models of institutions and learning process have got an influence in the movement of change and particularly applied on the different levels of uncertainty located in the process of innovation. Therefore a certain level of stability is attained in the long run (Hsieh, 2016 p.40). Lastly, the sociological institutionalism has been used to indicate that the different institutions are used in the provision of different frameworks which are meaningful for the guidance of human action and the cultural systems.

Weaknesses

According to Fink and Ruffing (2017 p.285), the sociological institutionalism does not typically give a specification on the element of strategic behavior in most of the organizational institutions and this is one of the fundamental weaknesses. The other weakness is that this type of institutionalism does not provide any particular reason on why certain key objectives in different organizations have been given more weight than the others in different organization institutions. There are typically numerous influences of different organizations on certain key issues which have to be taken into account during the formulation of public policy (Fioretos, Falleti, and Sheingate, 2016 p.15). The failure to consider the existing relationship between the organizations and other frameworks of the institutions has posed a challenge in relation to the formulation of various public policies in the community which is considered to be effective.

Another essential weakness of the sociological institutionalism that it has failed to give an explanation on the different social goals of a variety of organizational institutions and this is typical during the making of public policies by other government agencies. The wide range of dysfunctionalities in regards to the institutional frameworks cannot, therefore, be determined. Further, it does not look into the changes in technology as it is expected and this is particularly in relation to the making of public policy (Gershenson and Dobbin, 2015 p.100). Such an argument has been on the basis of the fact that it does not take into account some of the institutional changes when it comes to the implementation of the technical change. However, it only considers the mechanism of economic growth. Besides, the institutionalism has ignored the various changes existing in the primary identities. Some of the changes relate to the identity of gender which has passed through numerous changes and some of these changes have led to different changes in relation to the behavior of institutions.

According to Greenwood, Oliver, Lawrence and Meyer (2017 p.40), one of the fundamental weakness of the sociological institutionalism is that it has failed to explain on some of the reason attributed to the fact that various communities having inefficiencies have not learned from those other societies in which their institutions are successful and hence can approximate the economic growth level.

Strengths

One of the key strengths of the sociological institutionalism is that it helped through the provision for different solutions to many problems across the globe. Such problems, however, relate to the rational choice model and it is on the above strength that the different individual interests and values have been retained during the formulation of certain public policies (Farrell and Finnemore, 2017 p.144). The various public policy of diverse institutions, therefore, contains some of the stable rules and values of a specific community. The other strength of the institutionalism is that there has been an increase in the different elements of institutions and this includes, the informal procedures, institutional organization, conventions and routines which have all been consolidated in the political arrangements (Farrell, 2018 p.35).

Unlike in the other types of institutionalism, the sociological institutionalism considers a certain self-imposed standard of conduct and other ideologies in relation to different individuals’ behaviors. The self-imposed standards and conduct and the altruism play a key role when it comes to the informal constraints aimed at different behaviors (Feinstein and Meshoulam, 2014 p.385). Further, the other strength of the sociological institutionalism is that it considers the element of culture which has always been considered as one of the essential aspects of human behavior due to its implications on human behavior. Such a consideration of the aspect of culture by the sociological institutionalism has resulted in the proposal to have culture integrated with that of a particular community when making public policies by the various institutions of government.

The sociological institutionalism tends to focus mostly on values and interest of various actors in the society. Unlike the rational choice institutionalism whose primary focus is on the rational decision made by a variety of actors in the community and that typically forms one of the fundamental differences (Andrews-Speed, 2016 p.220). According to the rational choice institutionalism, the different actors in the society are considered to be utility maximising individuals who are selfish, however, this is unlike with the sociological institutionalism which views such actors as people in the society with ethical morals, norms, and values who are not utility maximizing and hence are not selfish (Conran and Thelen, 2016 p.65). The sociological institutionalism considers the institutions as a moral template whose primary role is to guide the human actions that culture is considered as the institutions. The rational choice institutionalism, on the other hand, stipulates that the primary role of various institutions is to maximize the value of the actors through the survival of the fittest aspect.

According to Alasuutari (2015 p.170), the legitimate functions of the different institutions are considered to be connected with the different patterns of corruption in the society and this is explained in the sociological institutionalism. It has been argued that society typically benefits from various of corruption, however, corruption has also been seen to undermine the society as a whole. According to the institutionalism, there is no requirement that the key perpetrators of corruption should have the corrupt motives to undertake institutional corruption. However such individual only needs to have certain immoral values, norms, and behaviors.

The key form of corruption explained in this type of institutionalism is the police corruption which has continued to affect many of the societies across the globe (Amenta, Nash, and Scott, 2016 p.100). The high levels of corruption, as explained, has resulted in various aspects such as the undermining of good governance of institutions, legitimacy,peace, and security of many individuals in different communities. Additionally, the sociological institutionalism provides insights on the impediments of corruption on various aspects such as the social and economic development. It also considers the fact that police corruption is one of the major corruption types in the category of government official’s corruption cases in the world.

Conclusion

In summary, the sociological institutionalism is of significance to the society. Such an importance is attributed to the fact that it provides guidance on norms, moral values and ethics which particular individuals in the institutions should comply with and failure to which there is a possibility of the collapse of such institutions. The primary focus of the institutionalism is on the individual behaviors in the society and this is especially in relation to culture displayed in a particular community.

The sociological institutionalism also certain weaknesses and strengths. One key strength entails, that there has been an increase in the different elements of institutions and this includes, the informal procedures, institutional organization, conventions and routines which have all been consolidated in the political arrangements. A fundamental weakness of the institutionalism is that does not typically give a specification on the element of strategic behavior in most of the organizational institutions and this is one of the fundamental weaknesses. Also,

it has failed to give an explanation of the different social goals of a variety of organizational institutions and this is typical during the making of public policies by other government agencies. There is, therefore, the need to enhance on integrating the social goals of institutions during the formulation of public policy.

References

Alasuutari, P., 2015. The discursive side of new institutionalism. Cultural Sociology, 9(2), pp.162-184.

Amenta, E., Nash, K. and Scott, A., 2016. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political sociology. John Wiley & Sons.

Andrews-Speed, P., 2016. Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, pp.216-225.

Conran, J. and Thelen, K.A., 2016. Institutional change. In The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism (pp. 51-70). Oxford University Press.

Farrell, H. and Finnemore, M., 2017. Global Institutions without a Global State. International Politics and Institutions in Time, p.144.

Farrell, H., 2018. The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Historical Institutionalism, and Sociological Institutionalism. In Knowledge and Institutions(pp. 23-44). Springer, Cham.

Feinstein, N.W. and Meshoulam, D., 2014. Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), pp.368-394.

Fink, S. and Ruffing, E., 2017. The Differentiated Implementation of European Participation Rules in Energy Infrastructure Planning. Why Does the German Participation Regime Exceed European Requirements?. European Policy Analysis, 3(2), pp.274-294.

Fioretos, O., Falleti, T.G. and Sheingate, A., 2016. Historical institutionalism in political science. The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism, pp.3-30.

Gershenson, C. and Dobbin, F., 2015. Institutions and the Economy. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. eds., 2017. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage.

Healey, P., 2018. Developing a ‘Sociological Institutionalist’Approach to Analysing Institutional Change in Place Governance. In The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in Action (pp. 48-66). Routledge.

Hsieh, C.C., 2016. Teacher education reform and its impact on teachers colleges in Taiwan: An analysis and reflections based on sociological institutionalism. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(2), pp.29-56.

Laursen, F., 2016. Regional integration: some introductory reflections. In Comparative Regional Integration (pp. 25-42). Routledge.

Ohanyan, A., 2015. Network institutionalism: a new synthesis for NGO studies. In The NGO challenge for international relations theory (pp. 102-124). Routledge.

Panov, P.V., 2015. Institutionalism (s): Explanatory Models and Casuality. Polis. Political studies, 3(3), pp.39-55.

Risse, T., 2016. “Let’s argue!”: Communicative action in world politics (2000). In Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations (pp. 260-299). Routledge.

Scharpf, F.W., 2018. Games real actors play Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Routledge.

Sorensen, A., 2015. Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history. Planning Perspectives, 30(1), pp.17-38.

Trampusch, C., 2014. Why preferences and institutions change: A systematic process analysis of credit rating in G ermany. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), pp.328-344.