第五講教育政策研究的制度基础：新政策制度主义的综述第五講教育政策研究的制度基础：新政策制度主义的综述 北京师范大学 教育研究方法讲座系列 (2): 教育政策研究
If public policy is (for simplicity sake) defined as what the state choose to act or not to act, these state actors certainly act in particular historical, socioeconomic, cultural and political contexts. In the field of policy-making studies, it is common knowledge that policy-makers cannot employ their rationality freely to seek the maximal solutions for the policy problems at hand. As Herbert Simon has aptly reminded us that policy-makers' rationalities are "bounded" by the relational networks and the institutional environment, in which they reside. Boundedness and Embeddedness of Public Policy
In the field of policy-implementation studies, it has become conventional wisdom that the state cannot omni-potently impose a policy directive onto the policy field and expects it to be carried out to the full because individuals as well as organizations responsible for the implementation are not operate in social vacuum but are heavily embedded in relational networks and institutional environments. Boundedness and Embeddedness of Public Policy
These conceptions of boundedness and embeddedness emerged from policy studies can be put against the theoretical framework of new institutionalism and construe them as enduring patterns found in institutions, organizations, interpersonal relationship, or even personal habitual actions and perceptions. Boundedness and Embeddedness of Public Policy
Douglass C. North stipulates that “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) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
Elinor Ostrom writes, “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) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
James March and Johan Olsen’s conception: “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 and Olsen, 2006, p.1) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
James March and Johan Olsen’s conception: According, 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) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
John Campbell’s conception: “Institutions …consist of formal and informal rules, monitoring and enforcing mechanisms, and systems of meaning that define the context within which individuals, corporations, labor unions, nation-states and other organizations operate and interact with each other. Institutions are settlements born from struggle and bargaining. They reflect the resourcesand power of those who made them and, in turn, affect the distribution of resources and power in society. Once created, institutions are powerful external forces that help determine how people make sense of their world and act in it. They channel and regulate conflict and thus ensure stability in society.” (Campbell, 2004, p. 1) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
Richard Scott’s conception “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) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann indicate 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.” (1966, p. 72) Concept of Institution: The Contextual Embeddedness of Public Policy
One of initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to prevailing perspectives in political sciences in the 1960s. One is the “old institutionalism”, which focuses their studies of the political institutions on formal-legal structure of the government, e.g. the legislative, executive and juridical structures. The other is the political behavior approach, which applies the behaviorism in psychology and concentrate o analyzing the political behaviors of individual political actors, such as voters. In reaction to them, new institutionalism focuses on the political meanings, symbols and cultures that constitute the regularity and durability underwriting the political institution and its structures. Academic Origins of New Institutionalism
Another initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to the methodological individualism found in economics, which manifest in theories of rational choice and preference. In reaction to these, new institutionalism put its emphasis on meanings and cultures, i.e. the logic of appropriateness, underlying human behaviors and choice. 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, the commons, and so on rather than individuals’ preferences and choices. Academic Origins of New Institutionalism
Ronald Coase Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 1991
Douglas North Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 1993 Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 1993
Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 2009 Oliver E. Williamson & Elinor Ostrom (1932- (1933-2012)
In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly in reaction to the legal-rational system model prevailing in organization studies and the structural-functionalism 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 of organization and the subjective elements underlying patterned actions and enduring practices. Academic Origins of 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 strategically-useful information, they also affect the very identities, self-images 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, rent-seeking, 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. 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
Normative Institutionalism: …. This perspective of new institutionalism can be founded in the conceptions of institution among numbers of prominent advocates of new institutionalism. For example, Peters points to March and Olsen’s path-breaking article in 1984 and their conception of “the principle of appropriateness” (as in dichotomy with the principle of consequence in rational-choice institutionalism), which lay the bases of the perspective in political science. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
Normative Institutionalism: …. Furthermore, we may trace the foundation of normative institutionalism back to Berger and Luckmann (1966) conception of legitimation. Accroding to Berger and Luckmann’s conceptualization, legitimation is “best described as a ’second-order’ objectivation of meaning.” (1967, 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 meaning-endowing efforts in order to formally institutionalized within a given society. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
Normative Institutionalism: …. …… Berger and Luckmann have divided the process of legitimation into two subprocesses. Legitimation is a “process of ‘explaining’ and justifying’.” (1967, p. 111) Explanation of cognitive validity: “Legitimation ‘explains’ the institutional order by ascribing cognitive validity to its objectivated meaning. …It always implies ‘knowledge’. ” (1967, 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’.” (1967, p. 111) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
Normative Institutionalism: …. …… Berger and Luckmann further differentiate that there are four levels of legitimation: Incipient level of legitimation: It refers to the “linguistic objectivations of human experiences.” (1967, p. 111) That is a given institutional order is assigned with a sets of names and vocabularies to provide it with cognitive as well as normative forms of objectivations. For examples, the system of vocabularies a culture ascribed to the kinship institution has not only provided various kinship relationships with cognitive validity but also lend them normative justifications of ‘what can be done and what not’. . The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
Normative Institutionalism: …. …… Berger and Luckmann …. four levels of legtiimation: ,,, ‘Theoretical’ level of legitimation: This level of legitimation “contains theoretical propositions in a rudimentary form. Here may be found various explanatory schemes relating sets of objective meaning. These schemes are highly pragmatic, directly related to concrete actions. Proverbs, moral maxims and wise sayings are common on this level.” (1967, p.112) Formal-knowledge level of legitimation: It contains established systems of knowledge and groups of specialized personnel who are entrusted with the authorities to use, produce, transmit and disseminate the designated sets of knowledge. The process entails the formal systems of education as well as those of the professions and scientists in modern society. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
Normative Institutionalism: …. …… Berger and Luckmann …. four levels of legitimation: ,,, Cultural level of legitimation: It refers to the process in which various provinces of meanings are integrated into what Berger and Luckmann called “the symbolic universe”. “The symbolic universe is conceived of as the matrix of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings. the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within this universe. …On this level of legitimation, the reflective integration of discrete institutional processes reaches its ultimate fulfillment. A whole world is created.” (1967, p. 114) Living and acting in this universe, individuals take the respective knowledge and norms as natural, given and ‘taken-for-granted’ similar to the air they breath within the physical universe. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism
The conception of institutional elements: Richard Scott suggests that “institution are viewed as made up of three component elements” (1994, p.56) or as he later called three pillars (1995) The regulative pillar: The effect or order of institutions is accounted for by ways of emphasizing the prominence of explicit regulative processes prevailing in institutions. They consist of “rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities” undertaken in institutions. Hence, the institutional effects, i.e. the institutional order, depend on “the capacity to establish rules, inspect or review others’ conformity to them, and as necessary, manipulate sanctions ──rewards or punishments── in an attempt to influence future behavior.” (Scotts, 1995, p. 35) Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
The conception of institutional elements: Richard Scott suggests that “institution are viewed as made up of three component elements” (1994, p.56) or as he later called three pillars (1995) The normative pillar: Theorists emphasize the normative pillar in accounting for institutional effects by focusing on the “prescriptive, evaluative, and obligatory dimensions” of social life. “Normative systems include both values and norms. Values are conceptions of the preferred or the desirable together with the construction of the standards to which existing structures or behavior can be compared and assessed. Norms specify how things should be done; they define legitimate means to pursue value ends.” (p. 37) Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
The conception of institutional elements: Richard Scott suggests that “institution are viewed as made up of three component elements” (1994, p.56) or as he later called three pillars (1995) The cognitive pillar: The institutional effects can also be accounted for by emphasizing cognitive elements in institutions, which refer to “the rules that constitute the nature of reality and the frames through which meaning is made.” (p. 40) Constitutive rules have been identified as the foremost cognitive elements in this perspective. By constitutive rules, it refers “rules involve the creation of categories and the construction of typifications: processes by which ‘concrete and subjectively unique experiences… are ongoingly subsumed under general orders of meaning that are both objectively and subjectively real.” (p.41) Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: “Institutional arrangements (i.e. elements) can be found at a variety of levels in social system – in societies, in organizational fields, in individual organizations, and in primary and small groups” (Rowan & Miskel, 1999, p. 359; Scott, 1995, p. 55-60) System level – The conception of Institutional environment Institutional environment: “Institutional environments are, by definition, those characterized by the elaboration of rules and requirements to which individual organizations must conform if they are to receive support and legitimacy” (Scott and Meyer, 1991, p.123) Two of the most prominent institutional environments in modern society are the nation-state and market, both of which share one of the most salient features of modernity, namely, rationality. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: Sector level – The conception of organizational fields Organizational field: It refers to “a community of organizations that partakes of a common meanings system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside of the field.” Hence, “fields are defined in terms of shared cognitive or normative frameworks or a common regulative system.” (Scott, 1995, p. 56) Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: Sector level – The conception of organizational fields Isomorphism: Organizations in an a organization field tends to become homogenous in terms of cognitive, normative and regulative aspects of the organizations. The concept best captures this process is 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. Two of the forces at work in modern society are efficiency and legitimacy. The former is more likely to be related to the competitiveness of the market, while the latter to the state. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: Organization level – The formal structure of the organization To comply with the isomorphic constraints of the organizational field and institutional environment, individual organizations have to structure themselves in regulative, normative and cognitive aspects to meet with the institutional elements of the filed and environment. As a result, two of the ideal types of formal structure of the organizations have constituted in modern society, the firm and the bureaucracy of government agencies. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: Human interaction level – “reciprocal typifications and interpretations of habitualized actions” Members of an individual organization, organizational field, or institutional environment will share many commonalities in meanings, interpretations, and typifications, i.e. common cognitive elements. They will institutionalize common languages, interacting and communicating patterns, and routines in practices. They will also institute common “logic of appropriateness and normative elements. Their interactions are also subjected to the regulative elements of the institution in which they find themselves. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
Levels of institutional analysis: Individual level - Internalization and Identity In reaction to rational choice theory, new institutionalism perceives individuals not simply as actors governed by rational calculus of preferences and self-interest, i.e. logic of consequences (James, 1994, p.3) but as agent having internalized set of norms, values and rules and their agency is governed by the logic of appropriateness of particular institutional settings. “When individuals and organizations fulfill identities, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preference as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57) Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure?
The concept of isomorphism:New Institutionalism at organizational level Conception 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?
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?
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?