Minor Io

Front 1

Definition New institutionalism or neo-institutionalism

Back 1

theory that focuses on developing a sociological view of institutions—the way they interact and the way they affect society. It provides a way of viewing institutions outside of the traditional views of economics by explaining why so many businesses end up having the same organizational structure (isomorphism) even though they evolved in different ways, and how institutions shape the behavior of individual members. New institutionalism recognizes that institutions operate in an environment consisting of other institutions, called the institutional environment. Every institution is influenced by the broader environment (or in simpler terms institutional peer pressure). In this environment, the main goal of organizations is to survive. In order to do so, they need to do more than succeed economically, they need to establish legitimacy within the world of institutions.

Front 2

Much of the research within New Institutionalism deals with

Back 2

the pervasive influence of institutions on human behavior through rules, norms, and other frameworks. Previous theories held that institutions can influence individuals to act in one of two ways: they can cause individuals within institutions to maximize benefits (regulative institutions, also called Rational Choice Institutionalism), similar to rational choice theory or to act out of duty or an awareness of what one is "supposed" to do (normative institutions, also called Historical Institutionalism). An important contribution of new institutionalism was to add a cognitive type influence. This perspective adds that, instead of acting under rules or based on obligation, individuals act because of conceptions. "Compliance occurs in many circumstances because other types of behavior are inconceivable; routines are followed because they are taken for granted as 'the way we do these things'" (Scott 2001, p. 57) - also called Social Institutionalism.[1] Individuals make certain choices or perform certain actions not because they fear punishment or attempt to conform; neither do they do so because an action is appropriate or the individual feels some sort of social obligation. Instead, the cognitive element of new institutionalism suggests that individuals make certain choices because they can conceive of no alternative.

Front 3

A sociological interpretation of institutions

Back 3

normative institutionalism holds that a "logic of appropriateness" guides the behaviour of actors within an institution. The norms and formal rules of institutions will shape the actions of those acting within them.
This approach can be readily contrasted with rational choice institutionalism: rather than a series of calculated actions designed to maximise perceived benefit, any given actor within an institution will feel to some extent constrained and obligated by the norms and rules of the institution.

Front 4

Rational choice institutionalism

Back 4

draws heavily from rational choice theory, but is not identical to it. Proponents of this theory argue that political actors' rational choices are constrained ("bounded rationality"). But, individuals realise their goals can be best achieved through institutions. In other words, institutions are systems of rules and inducements to behaviour in which individuals attempt to maximise their own utilities.

Front 5

Historical institutionalism

Back 5

As the name suggests, this version of institutionalism states that "history matters." Paths chosen or designed early on in the existence of an institution tend to be followed throughout the institution's development. Institutions will have an inherent agenda based on the pattern of development, both informal (the way things are generally done) and formal (laws, rulesets and institutional interaction.) A key concept is path dependency: the historical track of a given institution or polity will result in almost inevitable occurrences. In some institutions, this may be a self-perpetuating cycle: actions of one type beget further actions of this type.This theory does not hold that institutional paths will forever be inevitable. Critical junctures may allow rapid change at a time of great crisis.

Front 6

Meyer & Rowan (eds) in The New Institutionalism in Education

Back 6

Since 1990s. New institutional reality: greater provider pluralism, calls for accountability, more central role of edu institution in society. Challenges Meyer’s inst of 70s and 80s. Basic assumption of all inst thinking: large institutional complexes such as edu and their practices are contingent and contested. Social inst can assume many shapes/forms. Purpose of inst analysis is to tell why one variety is selected and whose interests served by it. Trade-offs. Alternatives. Three themes that mark difference with new inst: 1. Cognition and social construction instead of formal legal structure. Origin of inst in taken for granted classifications, schema that humans use to create order. 2. Changing ties among polity, economy, civil society. Preference formation occurs within constraints of inst. Bargaining, conflict and power important. Context. 3. More attention to concrete historical actors who built an inst. Motivated by self-interest, values and cultural beliefs. Address change, power, efficiency. Dominant coalition not always most efficient. Inst change often requires political change, redistribution of power. Inst equilibrium that can be upset by exogenous shocks or internal contradictions. Historical institutionalism – how inst arrangements exclude actions from feasible set. Path dependent.

Front 7

Karen Mundy in Global Governance and Educational Change
Global gov

Back 7

Global Gov research looks at how forms of intl authority socially constructed and historically contingent, rather than materially or historically fixed. Looks at norms and ideas and role of transnational nonstate actors. Embraced a normative goal – operating rules for the world polity. Idea of global gov first came to fore through Rosenau’s classic reframing of world order as a system of governance without government. System of rules and regulation had emerged at intl level even though lacked formal coercive basis of legitimated political authority associated with states. Sparked three main clusters of research. 1. Specific set of reforms to achieve better delivery of global public goods. 2. Case studies of roles of intl norms, IOs and nonstate actors. Embedded liberalism; neoinstitutionalists/bureaucracy; moral authority of social movements and collective action; pomos looking at modernity.

Front 8

Karen Mundy in Global Governance and Educational Change
Edu multilateralism

Back 8

Educational multilateralism. Mass edu and national identity. Edu has been an accepted and growing arena for intergov cooperation. 2 arenas for edu mult between 1945 and 1990. 1. Intl regime for edu development in newly ind states of the south. Universal right to edu, bilateral aid, UN orgs. Fed by Cold War competition and redistributive claims for edu. 2. Standard setting. OECD. Edu Mult did not form a coherent whole. Torn between edu as universal value and that it’s contained in territorial nation states. Shaped by liberal norms and also realist economic and geopolitical interests of sov nations.

Front 9

Karen Mundy in Global Governance and Educational Change
Two main theoretical frameworks by edu scholars

Back 9

1. Meyer, Ramirez. Expansion of schooling as taken for granted and homogenous institutional form around the world. IOs as handmaidens. World society. Structural. 2. Cultural imperialism and expansion world capitalism. Mass edu as legitimating system. Erode sov. Glob gov can move beyond these 2 ideas.

Front 10

Karen Mundy in Educational Multilateralism in a Changing World Order

Back 10

History of UNESCO’s work in edu. Shows shared ideas about multilaterialism post-WWII. These laid foundation for Ruggie’s embedded liberalism – management of stable and expanding world economy linked to shared model for domestic development (Keynesian welfare state). IOs creted to buffer to the Keynesian state from fluctuations, reduce likelihood of war. Security and peace, economy and protection of state. Edu cooperation essential to construction of peaceful, democratic and civilized intl society. Shared commitment to expansion of mass systems of edu. 1970s – second era in multilaterialism, global redistribution and equity. Group of 77 and the NIEO attempt. Wave of questioning about value of formal schooling and its role in economic development. Third World demands for redistribution. IOs reframed purposes of intl edu cooperation – rural, nonformal, vocational ed. 1970s – 1990s – globalization. OECD abandoning Keynesian, move to NL. Some IOs dominated by rich (IMF, WB, OECD) focused on NL. Other side, UN. Crisis – rich unwilling to support. Vocal movements for participation and accountability. Peacekeeping pressure. UNESCO has symbolized world’s worst fears and widest aspiration for intl cooperation. Most universal, democratic; subjugated functional and economistic approaches to humanistic vision. Struggle.