THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

institutions are assumed to influence preference formation. The second distinctive feature
relates to the definition of institutions. Sociological institutionalism tends to define
institutions broadly to include “not just formal rules, procedures or norms, but also the symbol
systems, cognitive scripts and moral templates that provide the ‘frames of meaning’ guiding
human action. 245 Taking into account its intellectual roots and distinctive features, it is not
surprising that the substantive questions about organisational change sociological
institutionalists tend to raise, are about why institutional practices originate or change.
Brunsson, Czarniawska, Sahlin-Andersson, Christensen, Laegreid and Roevik are all
proponents of this approach. 246
The above scholars and their collaborators have produced a range of studies that seek to
account for why and how institutional forms, procedures or symbols are diffused through
organisational fields or across nations. This is what Hall and Taylor claim is typical for this
branch of new institutionalism. Their explanations tend to emphasise that “organisations often
adopt a new institutional practice not because it advances the means-ends efficiency of the
organisation, but because it enhances the social legitimacy of the organisations or its
participants. 247 March describes this as the logic of appropriateness in contrast to logic of
consequence. 248 However, sociological institutionalists have developed a set of theories that
are of growing interest to political scientists.
These scholars are also interested in the study of cultures and norms as institutions. They
emphasize the use of folkways in understanding patterns of behaviour and cognitive maps.
They argue that, using these social institutional tools is critical in understanding of social
structures as well as political and economic interactions. 249 Building upon their analyses of
complex organizations, these scholars show the relationship between formal institutions, their
structures, patterns of behaviour and beliefs. But to differentiate themselves from pure
organizational theorists who stressed how behaviour was normatively based, sociological
institutionalists stress that routines and habits are important aspects of actors underlying
cognitive framework. 250
Furthermore, scholars in this tradition argue that the informal institutions are fundamental
when labouring to understand the non rational aspects of human communication and
exchanges. Putting it clearly, this means that many of the institutional forms and procedures
used by modern organizations were not adopted simply because they were the most efficient
for the tasks at hand, but were in line with the transcendent rationality. 251 They argue that
many of these forms and procedures should be seen as culturally specific practices, akin to the
245
Pierson, P. 2000. Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science
Review 94:251-67.
246
Czarniawska, B. 1998. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
247
Hall, P and R. Taylor, Opcit.
248
March, J. Opcit.
249
March , J and P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.
250
George, T et al. 1987. Institutional Structure: Constituting State , Society and Individual, Beverly Hill: Sage.
251
Hall, P and Taylor,R. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies.
50