ArticlePDF Available

Institutional change and globalization



List of Figures ix List of Tables xi Preface xiii CHAPTER ONE Problems of Institutional Analysis 1 CHAPTER TWO The Problem of Change 31 CHAPTER THREE The Problem of Mechanisms 62 CHAPTER FOUR The Problem of Ideas 90 CHAPTER FIVE The Problem of Globalization 124 CHAPTER SIX Where Do W Go from Here? 172 APPENDIX Analysis of Tax Levels and Structures for Country Subgroups 191 References 205 Index 239
Varieties of Institutionalism and their Problems: Some comments on John
Campbell's Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton University
Press, 2004.
Richard Whitley
(Manchester Business School, University of Manchester)
The Problem of Institutional Change
According to John Campbell, a central problem in much institutionalist analysis
concerns how we are to understand institutional change. This becomes a critical
issue when dominant institutions are considered to determine the nature and
behaviour of socio-economic groups and organisations in market economies such
that they are largely limited to fulfilling pre-ordained roles. To the extent that
institutionalist analyses presume that institutions are cohesive and mutually
reinforcing in their implications for economic and other actors, they find it difficult
to account for major socio-economic change. Given that many social scientists
believe that substantial change has occurred in the leading OECD states since
the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, this poses a serious problem for
institutionalist analysis in the view presented here.
This problem is considered to have three major aspects: how to identify the nature
of institutional change, how to explain it, and how "ideas" help to account for it.
While it is clearly important to be able to describe a phenomenon adequately if we
are to understand it, and identifying the key mechanisms involved in producing it
seems crucial to providing satisfactory explanations of institutional change, I am
less convinced of the centrality of the role of ideas, or beliefs, as a key issue in
accounting for such change. In what sense are explanations based on moral and
other beliefs a problem of the same order as arriving at adequate descriptions and
providing causal accounts of institutional change? As potential explanatory
factors, they are one set amongst many candidates, and do not seem to pose a
problem in the same way as the previous two might. Furthermore, it seems odd to
separate "ideas" from "interests", given that, as the author claims on page 91,
"Interests are a particular type of idea among many…… other types of ideas.
(they) are socially constructed". It would seem more productive to explore the
ways in which different kinds of interests and other motivating beliefs are
constructed by differently constituted groups of actors to affect patterns of
institutional change.
However, that would call into question the tripartite division of institutionalist
analyses that underpins this book. Like others, Campbell distinguishes between
rational choice, organisational and historical varieties of institutionalism as three
distinct "paradigms", or frameworks of analysis, that deal with his three sub-
problems in different ways. Aside from the misleading use of Thomas Kuhn's term
in this context - perhaps not surprising in the light of Kuhn's own ambiguities
about its meaning and use (Martins, 1972; Masterman, 1970) - this summary of
three recent strands of thought about institutional change and their central role in
structuring this book highlights an apparent conflict between two purposes.
First, in presenting an overview of some approaches and how they have dealt with
certain issues - or failed to do so adequately - the book attempts to offer an
introductory survey of the field for new researchers, in a comparable manner to
Richard Scott's Institutions and Organizations (1995). This objective might
account for the frequent labelling of some authors as being a particular type of
institutionalist, or, in Burawoy's case, of not being one at all, which appears rather
odd and unnecessary to many European social scientists. Second, the book also
purports to make a substantive contribution to the analysis of institutional change,
to the extent of suggesting 12 propositions about it that could form part of a new
theory. While it may be possible to combine these two goals in a single volume
successfully, it is not a straightforward matter to do so, and in this case the desire
to incorporate a discussion of currently influential approaches, particularly those
fashionable in North America, seems to me to have seriously inhibited the
substantive contribution that could have been made.
This wish to incorporate many of the present frameworks governing social
scientific research about socio-economic phenomena is especially unfortunate in
the construction of rational choice institutionalism. At least in its more reductionist
variants, it would be odd to regard this approach as reflecting institutionalist
presumptions at all, except in the very general and usually implicit sense that it
takes for granted the key institutions that underpin modern market economies and
strategic decision making in them. By assuming hyper-rational actors with perfect
knowledge of their interests and of how to make trade-offs between alternative
actions and preferences, many rational choice theorists exclude institutional
arrangements from any explanatory role in their accounts, especially in
constituting socio-economic groups as particular kinds of actors with properties
that vary between institutional contexts.
However, once it is agreed that actors' interests are institutionally constructed,
and that rational action reflects socially constituted preferences and cognitions,
then the processes through which different groups come to have particular beliefs
and conceptions of the world, their roles in it, and their interests, become central
to any adequate account of socio-economic and institutional change. In this
sense, ideas and beliefs are necessarily crucial to the understanding of all social
phenomena and should not be separated as a distinct "problem".
Furthermore, to suggest that the institutional constitution of actors is simply a
matter of institutions guiding and enabling them, as is done on page 62, is to
ignore, or downplay, the significant role of societal institutions in constructing
different types of collective socio-economic groups and organisations as particular
kinds of actors that are able to carry out different kinds of activities in varied
societal environments. Similarly to much institutionalist economics, this view
focuses on the regulative aspect of institutional rules at the expense of their
constitutive role, which many Anglophone philosophers of the social sciences
have been emphasising at least since the publication of Peter Winch's The Idea of
a Social Science in 1958. This feature of institutions specifies the ontological
status of socio-economic actors and their capabilities while their regulative aspect
specifies the nature of appropriate behaviours. It is the unwillingness of most
rational choice approaches to socio-economic phenomena to take account of the
institutionally variable nature of actors, and their presumption of the protean,
universal and non-socially differentiated nature of firms as economic actors, which
distinguishes them from institutionalist accounts.
Returning to the two major issues in the analysis of institutional change, John
Campbell suggests that the key concern is to identify both the degree of change
involved, especially whether it is revolutionary or revolutionary in a comparable
manner to much of the literature on technological change, and the nature of the
social mechanisms producing it. It is not especially clear why the extent of change
is seen as the central problem, or how we should decide what constitutes as
adequate description of it. In any event, we are urged to specify the number of
dimensions on which change has occurred and the period of time within which it is
deemed to have happened. Radical change is seen as involving more of these
dimensions within a certain period, while incremental shifts in dominant
institutions are those that occur on only a few of them.
In addition to the difficulty of deciding which are the central dimensions for
assessing the degree of institutional change, how many we should take into
account, and for which intellectual purposes, this focus on the number of separate
aspects of institutions tends to ignore the interdependence of institutions and the
extent to which they are complementary in their impact on actors. Radical
qualitative change in societal institutions is usually understood to involve the
transformation of the whole configuration governing the nature of dominant actors,
their resources, abilities and strategies, rather than changes in a number of
discrete variable (see, e.g., Amable, 2003: 66-73). It is precisely the interrelated
modification of institutional arrangements in different fields that indicates a major
change in the environment of socio-economic actors, including, as Amable
emphasises, the composition of the dominant social bloc. Parenthetically, it may
be worth noting here the curious omission of the work of the French regulationist
school in this book.
The importance of complementary changes in dominant institutions and coalitions
for achieving transformative shifts in socio-economic systems is a major reason
why many observers consider the recent modifications in the governance of
actors in the capital markets and banking systems of Germany and Japan not to
herald radical institutional change of the kind that took place in the former state
socialist societies of Eastern Europe (Deeg, 2005; Jacoby, 2005; Vogel, 2005).
Not only did many other institutions governing important parts of the economic
system in these countries not undergo qualitative change in the 1980s and 1990s,
but the impact of the shifts that have occurred has been restricted to particular
sectors, firms and social groups. In considering the degree of institutional and
socio-economic change, then, the connections between dominant institutions are
at least as important as the number of their characteristics that have altered -
even if we can agree on what these are and how we should assess changes in
Turning now to consider the mechanisms that might account for institutional
change, the key ones considered here are path dependence, bricolage and
translation. Path dependent explanations are regarded as being better suited to
explaining continuity rather than change, while bricolage reshuffles existing
institutional elements to create novelty and translation involves the importation,
transformation and application of elements from external sources. Bricolage is
seen as primarily a mechanism for evolutionary change since it necessarily limits
the range of institutional principles and practices available for innovation. With this
process, institutional entrepreneurs achieve incremental change by reshaping
existing ways of thinking and legitimating practices within the available repertoire
of justificatory norms and values.
More radical changes depend on the translation and adoption of new elements
from outside the social system. As John Campbell rightly emphasises, traditional
diffusion studies tended to assume that what was being transferred between
people, organisations and cultures was largely unmodified by the diffusion
process. This is both theoretically and empirically improbable, as extensive
studies of material and social technology transfers within and between
organisations have confirmed (see, e. g., Abo, 1994; Boyer et al., 1998; Hancke
and Casper, 2000; Hibino, 1997). It therefore becomes important to consider how
institutional elements are transformed when translated, as well as how such
processes affect institutional arrangements in different kinds of "receiving "
society. As with many processes of change, such translation is by no means a
simple, linear and "rational" adoption of new, more efficient, practices but often
takes the form of a struggle between various groups pursuing distinct objectives
with opposing principles in which the outcome is often uncertain.
While this account of bricolage and translation mechanisms may be helpful in
explaining institutional change, albeit perhaps not as novel as seems to be implied
(see, e.g., Lanzara, 1998), it is unclear why these particular processes have been
singled out for special attention, or how we should identify and compare different
institutional principles and practices. If they are indeed central to the study of
institutional change, then presumably any substantive theory should suggest how
different kinds of actors are able to recombine and/or translate varied sorts of
institutional elements for particular purposes and achieve specific changes in
different circumstances. Although some examples of these processes are
provided in this book, it remains unclear how such a theory will develop and it is
difficult to avoid entirely the suspicion that using this sort of terminology will result
more in relabelling commonsense descriptions than providing substantive
explanations of institutional change.
Similar points can be made about the discussion of how cognitive and normative
ideas can help to generate institutional change. Distinguishing between
paradigms, programmes, frames and public sentiments in terms of their relative
focus on outcomes - or cause-effect relations - and the extent to which these
ideas are explicitly used in public debates, John Campbell suggests how different
kinds of actors develop and mobilise support for them to create change. Again,
though, it is not obvious why these dimensions were selected, or how we are to
identify different kinds of paradigms, frames etc., their likely development by
particular groups in various situations, or probable outcomes. If these types of
beliefs, frameworks and ideas are so critical to explaining institutional change,
then we should be able to suggest how different kinds will be more or less likely to
be used by certain groups to accomplish specific objectives, and be relatively
effective in doing so in different circumstances.
The intellectual utility of these distinctions and guidelines is then demonstrated by
considering how "globalisation" is affecting political and economic institutions.
Reducing this multifaceted and often vaguely defined phenomenon to the
increasing international mobility of investment capital since the breakdown of the
Bretton Woods system, it is seen here as creating a major problem for the sorts of
institutional analysis discussed in this book. This is because some scholars think
that the growing freedom of investors to move capital across national borders
enables them to put increased pressure on national policy elites and the strategic
managers of large firms to follow investor-friendly strategies. These are usually
held to involve neo-liberal state policies and the maximisation of shareholder
returns. As a result, globalisation is supposed to encourage the standardisation of
both national state economic policies and corporate priorities regardless of
nationally distinct institutional frameworks. According to the more enthusiastic
proponents of what Bill Emmott termed "globaloney" (1992: 29-40; compare,
Doremus et al., 1998), then, nationally specific institutions are increasingly
irrelevant to the explanation of socio-economic phenomena.
Even if the degree of capital mobility has grown as much as some have claimed,
and this remains very much in dispute, particularly relative to that prevailing during
the Gold Standard period, it remains unclear exactly why this should be such a
"problem" for institutional explanations of socio-economic phenomena. First of all,
increasing external financial pressures need not necessarily imply the
homogenisation of state and corporate policies if, as most of the authors
considered in this book would agree, national and other institutional arrangements
help to generate particular kinds of competences in leading strategic actors. Firms
are more likely to respond to growing "outsider" influence - and it is worth noting
that most large companies in the major OECD economies rely relatively little on
external finance for investment purposes - by focusing on their different
capabilities rather than all competing in the same way across international
markets. Slavishly imitating what is considered to be current "best practice" by, for
instance, imitating lean production techniques is impossible to do without some
translation, as this book emphasises, and also implies an inability to innovate
successfully. By always trying following the industry leader, companies will never
reap first mover advantages and be permanently condemned to competing on
other firms' terms.
Similarly, states in institutional regimes that provide certain competitive
advantages for their leading firms in some technologies and markets would be ill-
advised to abolish these in the hope of catching up with the apparently more
successful ones. Insofar as globalisation is creating common financial pressures
for leading companies and state élites in the major OECD economies, then, these
forces are just as likely to increase the heterogeneity of policy responses and firm
strategies as decrease it, as indeed happened in the early part of the 20th
Second, as many critics of the hyper-globalisation argument have emphasised
(see, e. g., Weiss, 2003), it is peculiar to treat globalisation as an external force
compelling states to adapt to its apparent imperatives when it is largely the
actions and policies of states that helped to create the international capital market
in the first place. Especially within the European Union, but also more widely,
many states have agreed to share some sovereignty and reduce national barriers
to economic interdependence in order to reap collective advantages and improve
their joint capabilities to manage market economies. How they deal with the
consequences can equally be expected to reflect national elites' perceptions of
their strategic interests and their ability to mobilise their own and other states'
resources, as well of course as the nature of dominant institutional regimes in
different societies and allied coalitions. As Laurence's (2001) study of the "Big
Bang" deregulations - or perhaps more accurately re-regulations - of the British
and Japanese capital markets reveals, both the nature and effects of these
superficially similar state policies were quite different as a result of the very
different institutional contexts and dominant coalitions.
Third, insofar as some states have succeeded in creating relatively stable and
effective transnational institutions governing economic activities, such as the WTO
and various free trade agreements, as well as more political arrangements such
as the European Union, in the latter half of the 20th century, and these have
intensified cross border competitive pressures, this highlights the continued
importance of institutions in structuring economic phenomena. However much
significance one attributes to the increase of global business regulation
(Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000), and the extension of multi-levelled governance
(Bache and Flinders, 2004), for the perceived internationalisation of competition
and shareholder pressures, it remains clear that the relevance of the institutional
framework within which economic actors are constituted and governed, at
subnational, national and transnational levels of collective organisation, is still
considerable. Overall, then, there does not really seem to be a "problem" of
globalisation for institutional analyses of economic phenomena, whether these are
organisational, historical or any other variant one cares to construct.
In the final chapter of this book, John Campbell summarises his ideas in the form
of 12 propositions that he suggests could constitute a rudimentary theory of
institutional change. This kind of change is understood as a process of
constrained innovation, a term that is curiously reminiscent of Kuhn's account of
the "essential tension" between novelty and tradition in the history of science
(1977:chapter 9; see also, Whitley, 2000: 9-29). However, many of these are so
general and remote from empirical phenomena, not to say tautologous, as to be of
limited use in characterising and explaining patterns of such change.
Proposition 1, for example, asserts that institutional change can be triggered by
problems that are either exogenous or endogenous to the institution in question,
while proposition 7 claims that change is more likely when the entrepreneurs in
favour of it command more resources than their opponents. One does not have to
agree with Popper's strictures about the assessment of scientific knowledge
claims to wish for rather more empirical content than is contained in these and
other suggestions. In particular, some idea of which kinds of actors are likely to
become effective institutional entrepreneurs and bring about specific forms of
change in particular circumstances would be welcome.
It also remains obscure how we should decide which types of programmes for
institutional reform could translate well to particular contexts, and in what sense
they could be said to fit specific circumstances. Overall, many of these
propositions seem unlikely to provide much additional explanatory value by, for
instance, identifying the causal processes through which particular types of
institutional change are likely to occur in specific kinds of ways in given contexts.
To do this, we would need to develop a systematic framework that: a) specifies
what is changing that requires explanation, i.e. what kinds of changes in which
institutional arrangement need to be accounted for, and suggests how we should
decide that a new account is better than previous ones, b) identifies the key
groups and the nature of their interests and beliefs that were involved in
supporting and opposing such changes, together with their material,
organisational and ideational resources, and c) shows how and why they were, or
not, effective in different societal contexts. Such a framework would have to show
both how particular kinds of changes; institutions, actors, beliefs, resources,
mechanisms and logics of action differed, and how these different types were
interconnected in certain situations to result in varied outcomes.
Abo, T. (1994) Hybrid Factory: the Japanese production system in the United
States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amable, Bruno (2003) The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bache, Ian and Matthew Flinders (eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Boyer, Robert, Elsie Charron, Ulrich Jurgens and Steven Tolliday (eds) (1998)
Between Imitation and Innovation: The transfer and hybridization of productive
models in the international automobile industry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, John and Peter Drahos (2000), Global Business Regulation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deeg, Richard (2005) “Path Dependency, Institutional Complementarity, and
Change in National Business Systems,” pp 21-52 in G Morgan, R Whitley and E
Moen (eds) Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change and
Systems of Economic Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doremus, P.N., W.W. Keller, L. W. Pauly, and S. Reich (1998) The Myth of the
Global Corporation, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Emmott, B. (1992) Japan's Global Reach: the influences, strategies and
weaknesses of Japan's multinational companies. London: Century.
Hibino, Barbara (1997) "The Transmission of Work Systems," pp158-170 in R
Whitley and P H Kristensen (eds) Governance at Work: The social regulation of
economic relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hancke, Robert, and Steven Casper (2000) "Reproducing Diversity: ISO 9000
and work organisation in the French and German car industry," pp 173-188 in S
Quack, G Morgan and R Whitley (eds) National Capitalisms, Global Competition
and Economic Performance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jacoby, Sanford (2005) The Embedded Corporation: Corporate governance and
employment relations in Japan and the United States, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas (1977) The Essential Tension, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lanzara, Giovan Francesco (1998) "Self-destructive Processes in Institution
Building and Some Modest Countervailing Mechanisms," European Journal of
Political Research, 33. 1-39.
Laurence, Henry (2001) Money Rules: The new politics of finance in Britain and
Japan, Ithaca, N Y: Cornell University Press.
Martins, Herminio (1972) "The Kuhnian 'Revolution' and its Implications for
Sociology," pp 13-58 in A H Hanson, T J Nossiter and S Rokkan (eds)
Imagination and Precision in Political Analysis: Essays in honour of Peter Nettl,
London: Faber and Faber.
Masterman, Margaret, (1970) "The Nature of a Paradigm", pp 59-89 in I Lakatos
and A Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Scott, Richard (1995) Institutions and Organizations, London: Sage.
Vogel, Steven K (2005) "Routine Adjustment and Bounded Innovation: The
changing political economy of Japan," pp 145-168 in W Streeck and K Thelen
(eds) Beyond Continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, Linda (ed) (2003) States in the Global Economy: Bringing domestic
institutions back in, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitley, Richard (2000) The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, second edition.
Winch, Peter (1958) The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
... The concept of an institution remains as vital as ever in accounting for such surprising stability in human behavior, and it has played a key role in advancing research on European public policy and European Union studies (Immergut 2006;Radaelli et al. 2012). First brought to prominence as a response to the increasing dominance of agency-oriented approaches -most notably behaviorism, rational choice, and structural-functionalist approaches (Hall and Taylor 1996;Campbell 2004;Peters 2019) -new institutional theories are joined by their emphasis on how structures are primary factors in producing outcomes at the level of the agent. i The route along which the different institutional theories arrive at this argument varies considerably (Peters, 2019), although in practice they tend to overlap and are often used in combination (e.g., Thelen 1999). ...
... Specifically, we probe how they each define an institution; their understanding of actors; how stability is produced; and which mechanisms bring about institutional change. Because the new institutionalisms presented in this chapter share a common ground in these matters, it comes as no surprise that they also struggle with similar analytical challenges (Campbell, 2004). Here we focus on two interconnected issues that in recent decades have been at the center of debates in new institutionalism. ...
... A key component of such practices is the translation of global ideas to a national or local context (Czarniawska, 2014;Waeraas & Nielsen, 2016). Rather than thinking of practice as something that follows automatically from normative and cognitive prescripts, a translation and practice perspective points to the significant diversity that may flow from actors' meshing of local ideas and history (Campbell, 2004). Similarly rejecting the automaticity of isomorphic processes, Beckert (2010) argues that the drivers of change as developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) are not in fact unequivocal regarding the direction of change, as depending on circumstances, they may potentially produce either homogenization or diversity. ...
... The processes of globalization, with their political advances and retreats, interdependence, and international Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, February 27, 2023 Qeios ID: Q15VBO · 1/25 cooperation for development, form the background in which national and subnational governments, international organizations (IO), and other agents encourage and execute the movement of exchange of experiences, institutional models, and knowledge, causing PP to overflow the borders of states (CAMPBELL, 2004;GRAHAM;SHIPAN;VOLDEN, 2013) and become internationalized. The study of this movement, known generically as policy diffusion, is a relevant field to explain patterns and motivations that lead governments to emulate, to accept conditionalities to implement policies and to seek to learn from successful cases (GILARDI, 2016;DOLOWITZ;MARSH, 2000;CONSTANTINE;SHANKLAND, 2017). ...
... causes absences in the interpretation of the very domestic policies(FARIA, 2018), as well as imposes difficulties in dealing with global phenomena (KAUL, 2013), such as diffusion(CAMPBELL, 2004). The globalization movement emphasizes the importance of recognizing the influence of international actors for PP at both levels, as well as inter and supranational elements and variables (OBINGER; SCHMITT; STARKE, 2013). ...
Studies on the international diffusion of public policies (PP) have gained relevance in specialized international literature since the 1990s. One of the reasons is its potential to allow the recognition of the real contours of international relations (IR) influence in the production of local policies. However, the debate is still incipient in Brazil. Especially when we adjust the focus on subnational entities in peripheral regions. This study is a contribution to the debate and was guided by two research questions: have the state governments of the northeastern region of Brazil been playing a leading role and have they been the stage of experiences of internationalization of public policies? What is the state of the art of the field of diffusion of PP in Brazilian research and how has IR participated in this field? The objective was to present the results achieved in a research effort that occurred in the integration between extension and teaching. The methodological design was elaborated in interface with the extension/training course Public Policies and International Diffusion and used the snowball technique, interviews and systematic literature review. The results pointed to a small growth of the field in Brazilian research, but with an inexpressive participation of IR and the role of state governments in leading the import and export of public policies. It was also possible to recognize the insertion of research institutions in the Northeast in the field of analysis of PP internationalization.
... No entanto, o tracejado concreto de como essa influência se estabelece é um debate em construção. Os processos de globalização, com seus avanços e recuos políticos, interdependência e cooperação internacional para o desenvolvimento formam o pano de fundo em que governos nacionais, subnacionais, organizações internacionais (OI) e demais agentes incentivam e executam o movimento de troca de experiências, de modelos institucionais e conhecimentos, fazendo com que as PP transbordem as fronteiras dos Estados (CAMPBELL, 2004;GRAHAM;SHIPAN;VOLDEN, 2013) e se internacionalizem. O estudo desse movimento, conhecido genericamente com policy diffusion -difusão de políticas públicas, se configura em um campo relevante para explicar padrões e motivações que levam os governos a emular, a aceitar condicionalidades para implantar políticas e a buscar aprendizados com casos exitosos (GILARDI, 2016;DOLOWITZ;MARSH, 2000;CONSTANTINE;SHANKLAND, 2017). ...
Os estudos sobre difusão internacional de políticas públicas ganharam relevância na literatura internacional especializada desde os anos 1990. Dentre outros motivos, pelo potencial de permitir o reconhecimento dos contornos reais da influência das relações internacionais na produção das políticas locais. Contudo, o debate ainda é incipiente no Brasil. Principalmente quando ajustamos o foco sobre entes subnacionais em regiões periféricas. Este artigo é uma contribuição para o aprofundamento deste debate, com a intenção de apoiar o ajuste de foco. Ele teve por objetivo apresentar os resultados alcançados em um esforço de pesquisa realizado a partir da integração com a extensão e o ensino. A integração se deu por meio do curso de extensão/capacitação em Políticas Públicas e Difusão Internacional, apresentado no artigo, do qual resultou o desenho de investigação e execução do mapeamento das políticas públicas internacionalizadas dos estados do nordeste brasileiro e o diagnóstico do campo na pesquisa brasileira com destaque para a inserção da região. O levantamento do estado da arte das pesquisas sobre difusão, confirmou a incipiência, já identificada por outros autores, e permitiu reconhecer a inserção do Nordeste tanto como objeto quanto como produtor das análises. Com o mapeamento foram identificadas experiências de importação e, também, de exportação de políticas públicas lideradas por diferentes estados nordestinos, sinalizando a participação regional no cenário internacional de difusão de políticas públicas.
... Ou seja, as escolhas dos tomadores de decisão no curso do processo de estruturação da governança de um determinado segmento da sociedade são condicionadas por diferentes quadros de referência institucionais (aqui tratados como lógicas institucionais) que permeiam níveis locais de interação, por meio da atribuição de significado, do senso de conduta apropriada e dos fatores de legitimidade que as várias fontes de poder adquirem (THORNTON; JONES; KURY, 2005). Nesse sentido, admite-se uma relação entre os princípios, práticas e símbolos associados às lógicas institucionais e a racionalidade manifestada na cognição dos atores e no comportamento individual e organizacional (DiMAGGIO, 1997;OCASIO, 1997;CAMPBELL, 2004;THORNTON, 2004;THORNTON;OCASIO;LOUNSBURY, 2012). ...
Full-text available
Este artigo analisa a influência das lógicas institucionais de Comunidade, Mercado e Estado na estruturação da governança de recursos hídricos no Brasil. À luz do institucionalismo sociológico, foco é dado ao sistema de recursos hídricos, entendido como campo organizacional, e à interferência de lógicas institucionais societárias na configuração de quadros de referências locais para o comportamento dos atores sociais. Por meio de entrevistas semiestruturadas e análise documental, foram coletados dados sobre a codificação de significados e normas no arranjo de lógicas locais que, manifestadas na forma de diretrizes e práticas, influenciaram a estruturação da governança de recursos hídricos. O estudo é de natureza descritivo-qualitativa e abrangeu três décadas a contar da primeira conferência mundial sobre gestão de recursos hídricos em 1977. Os resultados evidenciaram que a consistência institucional, no contexto de regulação brasileiro, apresentou ambiguidade legal e homogeneidade entre legislações federal e estaduais. Entretanto, constatou-se que o modelo, centralizado no nível federativo, favorece o formalismo e provoca dificuldades na implementação da proposta integradora e participativa de gestão entre os Estados. Os resultados também apontaram que configurações de lógicas institucionais societais, ao nível do campo, interagiram com princípios locais, explicando em grande medida a variação nos modelos de governança. Como conclusão, duas proposições analíticas são apresentadas: (i) pressões isomórficas em nível mundial, sob influência dos arranjos de lógicas institucionais em nível societal, tendem a provocar heterogeneidade das estruturas de governança; (ii) lógicas institucionais em nível societal permeiam o campo organizacional, configurando ordens locais e moldando o discurso e identidade dos atores sociais.
... La definición de institución varía dependiendo del enfoque teórico de análisis institucional. De acuerdo con Campbell (2004), las instituciones son "las reglas formales e informales, de vigilancia y aplicación, y sistema de significado que definen el contexto en el cual los individuos, corporaciones, sindicatos, Estados-nación, y otras organizaciones operan e interactúan entre sí" (p. 299). ...
Full-text available
Este artículo trata sobre las transformaciones institucionales de los servicios de salud de Bogotá en aborto a través de un estudio de caso sobe Profamilia. Dicha entidad sin ánimo de lucro fue fundada en 1965, comprometida desde sus inicios con la lucha por los derechos y la salud reproductiva. Como prestador de servicios, Profamilia vivió profundas transformaciones graduales desde el año 2006, con la despenalización parcial del aborto en tres causales ordenada por la Corte Constitucional de Colombia. Después de la decisión constitucional, Profamilia pasó de no realizar ningún procedimiento de aborto, a convertirse progresivamente en el mayor proveedor de servicios. Por consiguiente, este artículo estudia la transformación de los servicios en el tiempo, empleando el método de análisis de cambios institucionales graduales propuesto por Mahoney y Thelen, para lograr realizar un estudio a profundidad sobre los cambios internos que se llevaron a cabo para lograr el aumento en los servicios y su relación con el marco legal vigente.
... For example, a mainstay of regional development policy in the EU has been a search for competitive advantage through and in policy-making. The concept of institutional competitiveness has emerged in the varieties of capitalism literatures (Campbell 2004;Campbell and Hall 2015;Crouch 2004;Blyth 2002) to refer to socioeconomic success as a result of the competitive advantages that firms derive from operating within a particular set of institutions and policy-settings. The institutional basis for successfully coordinating labour markets and vocational training programs at the regional level are often seen as key underlying mechanisms in institutional competitiveness and unlock the puzzle of how high taxes and state spending seem in certain contexts to enhance socioeconomic performance even as the dominant discourse of the effects on globalisation on public policy is a regulatory 'race to the bottom' as environmental, labour and consumer protection standards are lowered by pressures for competitiveness. ...
... The study of ideas gained momentum throughout the 1990s and inspired a new generation of studies that marked an ideational turn in the study of public policymaking (Dobbin, 1994;Czarniawska-Joerges & Sevón, 1996, 2005Blyth, 2002). In neo-institutional theory, this conferred theoretical robustness to the sociological institutionalist argument that institutional change is understood evolutionarily through the legitimation and diffusion of certain ideas and norms (Campbell, 2002(Campbell, , 2004Zapp et al. 2021). It also contributed to the emergence of discursive institutionalism, which explores the relationship between ideas and discourses to understand how ideas, conveyed in discourse, trigger institutional change (Schmidt, 2008). ...
Full-text available
The European Union Framework Programme (EUFP) is the most institutionalised form of supranational thematic programming in the world and the centrepiece of European Union research policy. Since 1994, the EUFP has also funded collaborative research projects in the social sciences. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to its genesis, development, and effects in shaping the development of European science, especially examined by discipline or multidisciplinary fields. The EUFP is thus analysed here through an instruments-as-institutions approach that conceptualises the EUFP as an institution. Content analysis of the official documents of each funding cycle (n=5) and a sample of European-funded educational research projects (n=122) were analysed in conducting this research. The results show incremental ideational change of the EUFP's guiding ideas: from knowledge as an instrument to knowledge as a resource; within-the-EU to outside-the-EU internationalisation; and cooperation to an integration rationale of Europeanisation from the EUFP4 and EUFP5 (1994-2002) to the EUFP6 onwards (2002-2020). European-funded educational research contents are shaped by such representations of what is expected of European research. If the policy instrument steers European-funded educational research, ideas more than regulatory features significantly-though incrementally-change the direction of European social science.
Full-text available
В монографії розглянуто широкий спектр актуальних проблем інноваційного розвитку та відповідних інституційних трансформацій. Особлива увага надається стратегічним аспектам розвитку високотехнологічних секторів національної інноваційної системи та проблемам освіти. Для науковців, викладачів, аспірантів і студентів вищих навчальних закладів, а також широкого кола читачів, яких цікавлять проблеми управління інноваційним розвитком. The monograph deals with the wide range of topical issues of innovation development and appropriate institutional transformations. Particular attention is paid to strategic aspects of high-tech sectors of national innovation system development and problems of education. For scientists, lecturers and students of higher educational institutions, as well as a wide range of readers, who are interested in issues of innovation development.
Applying the new economics of organization and relational theories of the firm to the problem of understanding cross‐national variation in the political economy, this volume elaborates a new understanding of the institutional differences that characterize the ‘varieties of capitalism’ found among the developed economies. Building on a distinction between ‘liberal market economies’ and ‘coordinated market economies’, it explores the impact of these variations on economic performance and many spheres of policy‐making, including macroeconomic policy, social policy, vocational training, legal decision‐making, and international economic negotiations. The volume examines the institutional complementarities across spheres of the political economy, including labour markets, markets for corporate finance, the system of skill formation, and inter‐firm collaboration on research and development that reinforce national equilibria and give rise to comparative institutional advantages, notably in the sphere of innovation where LMEs are better placed to sponsor radical innovation and CMEs to sponsor incremental innovation. By linking managerial strategy to national institutions, the volume builds a firm‐centred comparative political economy that can be used to assess the response of firms and governments to the pressures associated with globalization. Its new perspectives on the welfare state emphasize the role of business interests and of economic systems built on general or specific skills in the development of social policy. It explores the relationship between national legal systems, as well as systems of standards setting, and the political economy. The analysis has many implications for economic policy‐making, at national and international levels, in the global age.