Institutional work
Created by Thomas Lawrence and Roy Suddaby (2006, pp. 217), the concept of institutional work refers to “the broad category of purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions and businesses .”[1] The focus of institutional work shifts away from more traditional institutional scholarship that offers strong accounts of the processes through which institutions govern action and, instead, examines how individuals’ active agency affects institutions.[2] More recently the added value of the concept is explored in the context of environmental governance, where it offers novel opportunities for analysing the interactions between actors and institutional structures that produce stability and flexibility in governance systems.[3]
In later work, Lawrence et al. (2011, pp. 52–53) specified the interest of institutional work in “the myriad, day-to-day equivocal instances of agency that, although aimed at affecting the institutional order, represent a complex mélange of forms of agency—successful and not, simultaneously radical and conservative, strategic and emotional, full of compromises, and rife with unintended consequences.[4]
To understand institutional work and influences on institutions, an important idea to consider is path dependence, which states that past events constrain future outcomes.[5] Highly prevalent in discussions of technological and economic development, a common example is the use of the QWERTY keyboard, a technologically inferior system that established long-term superiority over other options by gaining an initial advantage.[6] When applied to political science, this idea can help explain how weak or inefficient institutions often resist change.[7]
One reason for path-dependence is that institutions are often self-reinforcing, as powerful organizations with the ability to enact change rose to prominence within the existing institutional structure, and thus are incentivized to maintain that same structure.[8] An example is the American health care system, which is incredibly complex, but arranged to the benefit of companies, agencies, and other actors that have the ability to force change.[9] Another reason is increasing returns to adoption, meaning that as an institution is more widely adopted and accepted, the transition costs of changing greatly increase.[10] This is shown in the dominance of fossil fuels, as the costs of changing over to renewables is high.[11] A third reason is lock-in effects, by which an initial, sometimes random event starts a spiral.[12] An example is the 2020 Beirut Warehouse Explosion, which caused massive devastation, in turn leading to increased instability, distrust of government, and a spiral of political unrest.[13] These mechanisms of path dependence contribute to explaining the difficulties actors face in influencing institutions, and add an important dimension to the study of institutional work.[14]
References
[edit]- ^ Lawrence, T. B.; Suddaby, R. (2006). "Institutions and Institutional work". In Clegg, S; Hardy, C; Lawrence, T (eds.). Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed.). London: Sage. pp. 215–254.
- ^ Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R.; Leca, B. (2009). "Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work". In Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R.; Leca, B (eds.). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–27.
- ^ Beunen, R.; Patterson, J.J. (2016-11-25). "Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: exploring the concept of 'institutional work'". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 62: 12–29. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1257423. ISSN 0964-0568.
- ^ Lawrence, T. B.; Suddaby, R.; Leca, B. (2011). "Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization". Journal of Management Inquiry. 20 (1): 52–58. doi:10.1177/1056492610387222.
- ^ Garud, Raghu; Hardy, Cynthia; Maguire, Steve (2007). "Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency". Organization Studies. doi:10.1177/0170840607078958.
- ^ Arthur, W. Brian (March 1989). "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events". The Economic Journal. 99 (394): 116–131. doi:10.2307/2234208. JSTOR 2234208.
- ^ North, Douglass (1990). "Preface". Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511808678.002. ISBN 978-0-521-39734-6.
- ^ North, Douglass (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511808678. ISBN 978-0-521-39734-6.
- ^ Wilsford, David (1994). "Path Dependency, or Why History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Care Systems in a Big Way". Journal of Public Policy. 14 (3): 251–283. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00007285. JSTOR 4007528.
- ^ Arthur, W. Brian. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Barazza, Elsa; Strachan, Neil (2021). "The key role of historic path-dependency and competitor imitation on the electricity sector low-carbon transition". Energy Strategy Reviews. 33. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2020.100588.
- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Murillo, María Victoria (2009). "Variation in Institutional Strength". Annual Review of Political Science. 12: 115–133. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.091106.121756.
- ^ Loft, Philip (August 2021). "Lebanon: One Year On From the Beirut Explosion".
- ^ Deeg, Richard (October 2001). "Institutional Change and the Uses and Limits of Path Dependence: The Case of German Finance". Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. SSRN 1013345.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)