THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

constraints have to be applicable to social relations because institutions are a product of social
constructions. 129
The third important aspect about institutions is that, they should be predictable. Rules and
constraints should be understood as cardinal principles. They should be applicable in repeated
and future situations. Agents should expect these rules and constraints to have some degree of
stability. 130 Therefore, as discussed above, institutions can be characterized along a number of
dimensions. These include: formal or informal rules, number of actors, membership, and
heterogeneity of interests, leadership, incentive structures, societal level, centralized or
decentralized, institutional dynamics, purposes, functions and outcomes as well as the way in
which they are formed. Institutions may be embedded or nested within other institutions or
overlap them. 131
Therefore, understanding perceptions about biodiversity in Kakamega can be well understood
when we look at the variations in the political and social institutions at both the local the
national and international level. Furthermore, it will entail appreciating the fact that the biotic
and social communities are co-evolutionary and interdependent.
2.3 Unpacking Institutionalism
Institutionalism specifically examines the ways in which institutions structure other social and
political behavior. Institutions play a crucial role through influencing the relationships
between individuals and how they interact. The method of inquiry is evolutionary; the object
of inquiry is the social process; the search is for factual explanations and causal
understandings. 132
When dealing with institutionalism as a method of inquiry, social value judgments are a part
of the process and must themselves be objects of analysis; the normative-positive dichotomy
is rejected. More attention is given to uniformities of customs, habits, and laws as modes of
organizing economic life. Individuals are influenced by motives that cannot be quantitatively
measured. 133 However, it is imperative to note that, variations regarding the understanding of
the concept of institutionalism continue to occur. These variations stem from the varied
traditions of institutionalism and institutional thought. Therefore, understanding of the
concept of institutionalism calls for our attention regarding the existing variations between
these different traditions. Here, we need to divide institutionalism into two: between
‘classical’ and ‘new’ institutionalism.
129 Kraatz, M.S. and E. J, Zajac. 1996. Exploring the Limits of the New Institutionalism: The Causes and
Consequences of illegitimate Organizational change. American Sociological Review 61(5): 812-836.
130 King, A. L. 1997. Instituttonal Interplay: A Report for Institutional Dimensions of Global Change.
International Human Dimension Programme on Global Enviromental Change, University of Vermont.
131 Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
132 North, D.C.1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press.
133 Clerkin, R M. 2006. Equifinality in nonprofit advocacy: A neoinstitutional exploration of nonprofit advocacy.
Doctoral dissertation. Bloomington:.Indiana University.
35