Abstract
This book has an ambitious goal—but not the one called for by some critics of institutional analysis in organization theory. The ambitious goal is to provide an overview, critique, and synthesis of institutional theories in the social sciences, particularly political science, sociology, and economics (organization theory is subsumed under sociology). However, the aim is not to provide an overarching theory of institutions or a critique of the field. Some scholars see institutional theory as uninhibited in its reach (Alvesson, Hallett and Spicer, 2019) and in need of more discipline and structure (see responses by Buchanan, 2020; Kraatz, 2020; Ocasio and Gai, 2020). What Jupille and Caporaso want is “engagement across disciplines, subfields and levels of expertise” (p. 1) and research, and they reveal this more eclectic position by not attempting to summarize and integrate definitions of institutions; instead, they provide their own: “intertemporal social arrangements that shape human relations in support of particular values” (p. 3). For Jupille and Caporaso, searching for a single, overarching definition is fruitless.
In setting up the sequencing of their book, the authors elaborate several issues that resonate throughout. One is what they call the common questions of origin, maintenance/stability, and change in institutions. Another is the issue of endogeneity. Are institutions essentially causally autonomous (overdetermined) or are they open to change and decay? And the third is the role of power in institutions, which permeates all of their thoughts.
After the first chapter setting out the various issues, four chapters follow to spell out what they see as the critical features of institutions. The first two follow from aspects of their definition of institutions: temporality and sociality. The next two are about institutions and (in)efficiency and institutions and power. There is then a concluding chapter, which is a summary and, more important, uses the framing in the previous chapters to suggest key areas for future research, without advocating any kind of unified theory of institutions.
In dealing with institutional temporality, Jupille and Caporaso emphasize that institutions are rooted in time. Surveying the literature in sociological, historical, and economic institutionalism, they focus on duration, tempo, sequencing, and timing, all of which are understood through events. And they do recognize the multifaceted nature of time. This analysis also considers punctuated equilibrium, critical junctures, and path dependence. They examine (as promised) temporality in relation to origins, maintenance/reproduction, and change in institutions.
In regard to institutional sociality (Chapter 3), Jupille and Caporaso “consider theories of institutions that focus on . . . their status as intersubjectively shared social arrangements” (p. 46). In this chapter, they draw substantially on organizational institutionalism. They suggest two anchors for sociological institutionalism: scripts, emphasizing the constituting nature of institutions, and skills, with actors who can be institution makers. In between, they say, “lies the interesting messy middle of social institutionalism in organization theory. . . .” (p. 48). Bounded rationality is also included in the messy middle. The three areas that Jupille and Caporaso address as exemplifying this messy middle (of which they approve) are institutional logics, institutional work, and the Fligstein and McAdam approach to fields. As political scientists, Jupille and Caporaso are surprised by “the rich and varying array of institutional explanations being developed, elaborated, and empirically explored, especially in sociological and business school work on organizations” (p. 71).
The next two chapters do not derive from the authors’ definition of institutions. Chapter 4, “Institutions and (In)efficiency,” goes beyond rational choice theory, dealing with transaction cost economics, bounded rationality, and interdependent choice. Within economic approaches, institutions shape incentives, promote coordination, facilitate economic development, solve collective problems, and secure property rights. Institutions effectively provide solutions to market problems. Jupille and Caporaso point out that institutional thinking is at the heart of the work of many Nobel Prize winners in economics.
Chapter 5 takes on the issue of institutions and power. The authors’ starting point is that there is no systematic treatment of power in institutional theory within historical, sociological, and economic approaches, and they confess to being puzzled by that. Their discussion of power is organized around the dimension of causality—from institutions being epiphenomenal (there is no causality with regard to power), to views in which institutions are highly constraining on actions and power, to institutions constituting power—specifically approaches whereby institutions and power are strongly interlinked. They suggest ways in which power is implicated in origins, maintenance, and change in institutions.
Chapter 6 presents conclusions, but again, there is no overarching theory of institutions here; rather, the authors explore themes, issues, and interesting possibilities, especially regarding origins, maintenance/stability, and change. On origins, they say, “one might wish that every theory of institutions began at the beginning, by providing an account of institutional origins” (p. 146). They offer two conclusions: first, that examining critical junctures is important for understanding foundings; second, the concepts of sociality, power, and efficiency need to be explored to provide explanations of institutional origins.
Jupille and Caporaso argue that institutional stability is overdetermined in many studies on maintenance and stability in the sense that reproduction of institutional structures and processes is presented as unproblematic through many self-reinforcing processes. Yet, Jupille and Caporaso see these processes as, in fact, problematic; that is, their operation is not straightforward but involves agency and institutional work (Suddaby and Lawrence, 2006). At the heart of institutional stability is the idea of taken-for-grantedness, which is so central to all forms of institutional theory. By their nature, institutions are persistent, and although they have strong characteristics of stability, they do change: “change stands in the sweet spot” (p. 149). But one would expect change to be primarily incremental. For Jupille and Caporaso, temporally focused scholars have contributed significantly to the study of institutional change through the use of ideas such as path dependence, punctuated equilibrium, and critical junctures. Particularly interesting ideas involve the ways in which “temporally disparate institutions meet in time and rub up against each other” (p. 150). The authors also express some surprise that legitimacy-based explanations for institutional change exist together with the idea of institutional work and institutional logics.
Where, then, does this leave Jupille and Caporaso? With a series of dialogues and opportunities. Since they do not aim to produce an overarching theory or framework, their survey of different forms of institutional theory leads them to use the four core concepts they deal with in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, suggesting pairings that might yield important insights into the workings of institutions. These pairings are power and (in)efficiency, temporality and power, sociality and power, temporality and efficiency, sociality and efficiency, and sociality and temporality.
In closing, the authors declare, “we come away from this engagement with theories of institutions stunned at the vast extent of institutional reality” (p. 156). This reaction leads them to suggest that institutional analysis should be much more concerned with the landscape of institutions, how the institutional environment is constructed in terms of concepts such as plurality, multidimensionality, embeddedness, density, and so forth. Following this direction, scholars could examine the nature of relationships between institutions, for example tension, competition, cooperation, interdependence, contradiction, and complementarity. The authors conclude, “Exciting research opportunities await in this space” (p. 157).
The first question is, do the authors achieve what they set out to do? Do they provide an overview, critique, and synthesis of institutional theories in the social sciences, particularly political science, sociology, and economics? For me, the answer is “definitely.” It is, of course, entirely possible that experts in institutional analysis in those particular disciplines may quibble with what the book includes and what it leaves out. But there is sufficient content for anyone interested to follow up in detail. This is a taking stock type of book. It is also clear that in doing the work needed to write the book, the authors, who are political scientists, have undertaken a voyage of discovery. They discovered that organizational theory is a hotbed of institutional theory, and they are quite approving of some approaches. But organizational institutionalists should not look for a comprehensive analysis of their subject matter.
So, the second, more compelling question for readers of ASQ is, what does the authors’ analysis say to organizational institutionalism? First, it allows institutionalists to see that there is a wider setting within which questions about institutions are studied. For those who see organizational institutionalism as a very separate endeavor, this may be of only passing interest. For those who see relatively strong ties to sociology and economics in particular but also to political science, this book will be helpful. I find it interesting that there was a section titled “Interfaces” in the first edition of The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Greenwood et al., 2008), which did have essays on institutionalism and economics, sociology, systems theory, globalization, and networks, among other things. By the second edition (Greenwood et al., 2017), that section no longer existed, either because some of the interfaces had become an established part of organizational institutionalism (e.g., identity, social movements, leadership) or because organizational institutionalism had grown more encompassing and issues regarding the consequences of institutions had become more pressing. Interestingly, many of Jupille and Caporaso’s examples are about the consequences of institutions.
Second, and following from the previous observation, the territory covered in the book, particularly what the authors call “applications,” shows us institutions at work that are not central to what those of us within organization theory study. Examples include studies about the development of liberal democracy, the collapse of communism in Europe, world polity theory, theories of economic growth and development, structuring a new economic order, totalitarianism, and so forth. These are all big questions of the kind that political science, sociology, economics, and history routinely deal with. They demonstrate the interplay among classic societal institutions such as government, social class, religion, education, family, business, and so forth but also that each of these institutions is made up of organizations, which is where organizational institutionalists can make a considerable contribution. In the second edition of The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, the section entitled “Consequences” has contributions on income inequality, economic inequality, wrongdoing, the natural environment, and race. And since that edition (2017), an explosion of studies has occurred within the framework of grand challenges. These are important developments, and Jupille and Caporaso show us that much work has already been done within sociology and political science that speaks to institutionalism and major issues. This book gives us an introduction to that work, and as organizational institutionalists increasingly address consequences, we must take account of scholarship from other disciplines.
Third, and central to the book, is a reaffirmation of the importance of power and the lack of research on power within institutional theory, which has been an ongoing critique of the field. And in addressing power, it is also necessary to deal with interests and conflict. By nature of their persistence, institutions are powerful. And the institutions at the heart of the applications in this book are, at the very least, formally authoritative. Yet, institutions are not only powerful but also subject to the power of other collectives, e.g., organizations, social movements. Once again, as scholars attempt to deal with grand challenges and wicked problems, the centrality of institutional power and the possibilities for change in the face of that power are critical. As Jupille and Caporaso say, “we continue to see institutions and power as a rich area for development, which will be especially open to interdisciplinary engagements . . .” (p. 138).
Fourth, and finally, the authors direct us to the inter-institutional world. Jupille and Caporaso state, “we inhabit an abundant institutional landscape” (p. 156). Institutions overlap, inhabit the same fields, rub up against each other, and so forth. As organizational institutionalists examine grand challenges, they will also come up against multiple institutions and organizations operating within the same space. Indeed, this multiplicity, which is without plan or design and presents overlaps and ambiguities, turns issues into wicked problems. So, as organizational institutionalists increase their examination of inequality, corruption, climate change, and refugees, it will be necessary to conceptualize the inter-institutional world, moving away from the examination of single institutions.
On the back of this book, my friend and colleague Royston Greenwood offers the following comments: “this is an ambitious and timely attempt to pull together—or at least to understand and connect—several disparate disciplinary approaches to understanding ‘institutions.’ For organizational theorists the book provides many insights, raises important issues, and should prompt reflection on where we might go from here. We may not all agree with some of the issues and statements made, but the scope and purpose make this a text that matters.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.