Sociological Institutionalism: Features, Uses, Strengths and Weaknesses

This article discusses Sociological Institutionalism, its features, uses, strengths and weaknesses. It explains how it differs from Rational Choice Institutionalism and its application in the study of corruption.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 1
POLICY, GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
by (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Course Date

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 2
Policy, Governance, and Democracy: International Perspectives
Sociological Institutionalism
The social institutionalism is a type of institutionalism which deals with the meanings for
certain individuals are created by various institutions. Such a meaning is of significance to the
political science due to its application in the building of blocks for the normative
institutionalism. It came as a result of the organization theory field. It arose in the late 1970s
from the organizational theory and this was against the means end rationality in the particular
organization. Further, it consisted of constitutive features existing between the individual and
institutions actions. The sociological institutionalism is also considered to be part of the new
institutionalism which contains an understanding of the various institutions in matters related to
social processes. Unlike the old institutionalism which was of the idea that there are numerous
attitudes which different actors can select from. The sociological institutionalism, however, came
up with the idea of the logic of appropriateness which was under the influence of sociology of
organizations.
History of Sociological Institutionalism
The sociological institutionalism originated from various elements such as the cultural
studies, anthropology, sociology, and organizational theory. The main focus of the above
mentioned institutionalism on the institutional cultures. According to the founders of the
sociological institutionalism, the rules, structures, and norms of the various institutions are
determined by the surrounding culture of the particular organization and this is unlike the old
institutionalism which emphasizes that such issues are mainly dictated by the levels of efficiency
within the organization (Sorensen, 2015 p.25). Also, the sociological institutionalism tends to

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 3
look into the questions relating to the cultural and social legitimacy of the particular organization
including the key participants of that organization.
Features of Sociological Institutionalism
There are a variety of features of sociological institutionalism and this makes it different
from the new institutionalism. According to the sociological institutionalism, the institutions are
as considered as a system which typically includes, the moral templates, cognitive scripts and
symbol systems and this is unlike the political scientists who consider institutions as norms,
rules, and procedures (Healey, 2018 p.55). Therefore there is a wide division between culture
and institutions. Culture under this type of institutionalism is redefined in the institutions. It is,
therefore, a reflection of the cognitive turn in sociology and culture is therefore associated with
attitudes and values which are effective.
The other feature of the sociological institutionalism is on the relationship existing
between the individual and institution actions. In the above mentioned feature, the impact of
institutions on behavior is taken into consideration such that it is argued that the institutions tend
to influence behavior. Such an influence is based on the provision of certain models and
cognitive scripts which helps in the interpretation of the behavior of various individuals in the
world. Also, based on the feature it is argued that the influence of institutions on behavior only
on what a person should do but instead it also gives specification on what an individual can
imagine to do (Trampusch, 2014 p.335). Further, the relationship between the individual and
institution action are considered to be highly interactive and thus it is part of the relationship.
The individuals are considered as social actors and this is on the basis of acting as social
convention specifies.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 4
Another key feature of sociological institutionalism is based on the change and
origination of institutional practices. On the basis of the above mentioned feature, the
sociological institutionalism argues that the reason for the adoption of a new institutional
practice by most of the institutions is to improve on the social legitimacy of the particular
organizations. The different institutional practices which are often adopted by organizations
because such practices are valued and this is usually in the cultural environment. However, in
certain circumstances, the adopted institutional practices could be dysfunctional and this is
especially in relation to the attainment of the formal goals of the particular organization.
How the Sociological Institutionalism is Used
Healey (2018 p.55), argues that the sociological institutionalism typically provides an
overview of the world and this also includes the knowledge on the relationship between the
objects (epistemology) and the subjects. It has therefore been applied in the social construction
of reality. It is on that basis that the individual’s conscience happens and this is usually in a
subjective manner via an interaction of various institutional processes considered as complex.
Additionally, it has been used in the determination of the legitimacy of any particular
organization and this is on the basis of the practices and structures of the particular organization
which is referred to as the social legitimacy. The sociological institutionalism also provides
certain key contributions in relation to the study of the expression of social values by different
organizations.
Generally, the various rationales are typically sustained by both the institutional and
technical environments. The institutional environment, for example, aids in providing legitimacy
to a particular organization and this is because it is considered a rational action in the form of a
procedure (Laursen, 2016 p.30). The technical environment, on the other hand, allows various

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 5
organizations to become efficient and also be in a position of producing certain goods and
services which are acceptable in the market and hence by the customers.The acceptance of the
goods and services which are efficiently produced will typically enable a particular organization
to attain most of its goals.
Apart from the above mentioned uses of the sociological institutionalism, the other use
relates to the reinforcement and strengthening of the organizational structures. Such a
reinforcement and strengthening of such structures entails the establishment of various rules and
later monitoring them with the aim that they are complied with. At certain times, such rules can
be manipulated with the intention of influencing certain future behavior (Ohanyan, 2015 p.120).
The normative part of the institutionalism, for example, focuses on the rules which guide
organizations and this it does through an emphasis on the obligatory and evaluative aspect of the
social life. The norms and values typically make up the normative systems. The norms are
certain key elements which indicate how various things should be done and this entails the
definition of the meanings of values which are legitimized. The values on the other hand,
generally stipulate that which is desirable and this is done in consolidation with the standards
constructed and later compared with the behaviors or even structures existing.
There is also the other pillar called the cultural cognitive pillar of the sociological
institutionalism. Such a pillar mainly focuses on the interaction and existence of various actors.
The comprehension of each of the actors makes up the structures of cognitive and this is usually
through the understanding of social reality. The various subjective interpretations of different
actors in the environment are typically based on a variety of social roles. The features of social
roles usually vary on the basis of space and time. The above mentioned aspect is also considered
to be one of the leading uses of the sociological institutionalism (Panov, 2015 p.40).

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 6
Additionally, the sociological institutionalism is also used as a guidance of the behavior of
different actors in various organizational institutions. It attains that through the prediction of the
different values and norms in different institutions. It is from such values and norms which the
different actions of the actors will be shaped (Risse, 2016 p.280). Some of the actors include the
public agencies tasked with the formulation of various policies which should be typically
friendly to the particular society. Further, such actors tend to promote certain values and interests
in the community and this, therefore, helps in maintain moral behavior.
The development of different organization can be attributed to the sociological institutionalism
and this has been attributed to the fact that it takes into account the learning process and the
various models of an institution which often undergo certain changes. The models of institutions
and learning process have got an influence in the movement of change and particularly applied
on the different levels of uncertainty located in the process of innovation. Therefore a certain
level of stability is attained in the long run (Hsieh, 2016 p.40). Lastly, the sociological
institutionalism has been used to indicate that the different institutions are used in the provision
of different frameworks which are meaningful for the guidance of human action and the cultural
systems.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Sociological Institutionalism
Weaknesses
According to Fink and Ruffing (2017 p.285), the sociological institutionalism does not
typically give a specification on the element of strategic behavior in most of the organizational
institutions and this is one of the fundamental weaknesses. The other weakness is that this type
of institutionalism does not provide any particular reason on why certain key objectives in
different organizations have been given more weight than the others in different organization

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 7
institutions. There are typically numerous influences of different organizations on certain key
issues which have to be taken into account during the formulation of public policy (Fioretos,
Falleti, and Sheingate, 2016 p.15). The failure to consider the existing relationship between the
organizations and other frameworks of the institutions has posed a challenge in relation to the
formulation of various public policies in the community which is considered to be effective.
Another essential weakness of the sociological institutionalism that it has failed to give
an explanation on the different social goals of a variety of organizational institutions and this is
typical during the making of public policies by other government agencies. The wide range of
dysfunctionalities in regards to the institutional frameworks cannot, therefore, be determined.
Further, it does not look into the changes in technology as it is expected and this is particularly in
relation to the making of public policy (Gershenson and Dobbin, 2015 p.100). Such an argument
has been on the basis of the fact that it does not take into account some of the institutional
changes when it comes to the implementation of the technical change. However, it only
considers the mechanism of economic growth. Besides, the institutionalism has ignored the
various changes existing in the primary identities. Some of the changes relate to the identity of
gender which has passed through numerous changes and some of these changes have led to
different changes in relation to the behavior of institutions.
According to Greenwood, Oliver, Lawrence and Meyer (2017 p.40), one of the
fundamental weakness of the sociological institutionalism is that it has failed to explain on some
of the reason attributed to the fact that various communities having inefficiencies have not
learned from those other societies in which their institutions are successful and hence can
approximate the economic growth level.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 8
Strengths
One of the key strengths of the sociological institutionalism is that it helped through the
provision for different solutions to many problems across the globe. Such problems, however,
relate to the rational choice model and it is on the above strength that the different individual
interests and values have been retained during the formulation of certain public policies (Farrell
and Finnemore, 2017 p.144). The various public policy of diverse institutions, therefore, contains
some of the stable rules and values of a specific community. The other strength of the
institutionalism is that there has been an increase in the different elements of institutions and this
includes, the informal procedures, institutional organization, conventions and routines which
have all been consolidated in the political arrangements (Farrell, 2018 p.35).
Unlike in the other types of institutionalism, the sociological institutionalism considers a
certain self-imposed standard of conduct and other ideologies in relation to different individuals'
behaviors. The self-imposed standards and conduct and the altruism play a key role when it
comes to the informal constraints aimed at different behaviors (Feinstein and Meshoulam, 2014
p.385). Further, the other strength of the sociological institutionalism is that it considers the
element of culture which has always been considered as one of the essential aspects of human
behavior due to its implications on human behavior. Such a consideration of the aspect of culture
by the sociological institutionalism has resulted in the proposal to have culture integrated with
that of a particular community when making public policies by the various institutions of
government.
Differences Between Sociological Institutionalism and Rational Choice Institutionalism
The sociological institutionalism tends to focus mostly on values and interest of various
actors in the society. Unlike the rational choice institutionalism whose primary focus is on the

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 9
rational decision made by a variety of actors in the community and that typically forms one of
the fundamental differences (Andrews-Speed, 2016 p.220). According to the rational choice
institutionalism, the different actors in the society are considered to be utility maximising
individuals who are selfish, however, this is unlike with the sociological institutionalism which
views such actors as people in the society with ethical morals, norms, and values who are not
utility maximizing and hence are not selfish (Conran and Thelen, 2016 p.65). The sociological
institutionalism considers the institutions as a moral template whose primary role is to guide the
human actions that culture is considered as the institutions. The rational choice institutionalism,
on the other hand, stipulates that the primary role of various institutions is to maximize the value
of the actors through the survival of the fittest aspect.
Examples of Sociological Institutionalism (Corruption)
According to Alasuutari (2015 p.170), the legitimate functions of the different institutions
are considered to be connected with the different patterns of corruption in the society and this is
explained in the sociological institutionalism. It has been argued that society typically benefits
from various of corruption, however, corruption has also been seen to undermine the society as a
whole. According to the institutionalism, there is no requirement that the key perpetrators of
corruption should have the corrupt motives to undertake institutional corruption. However such
individual only needs to have certain immoral values, norms, and behaviors.
The key form of corruption explained in this type of institutionalism is the police
corruption which has continued to affect many of the societies across the globe (Amenta, Nash,
and Scott, 2016 p.100). The high levels of corruption, as explained, has resulted in various
aspects such as the undermining of good governance of institutions, legitimacy,peace, and
security of many individuals in different communities. Additionally, the sociological

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 10
institutionalism provides insights on the impediments of corruption on various aspects such as
the social and economic development. It also considers the fact that police corruption is one of
the major corruption types in the category of government official’s corruption cases in the world.
Conclusion
In summary, the sociological institutionalism is of significance to the society. Such an
importance is attributed to the fact that it provides guidance on norms, moral values and ethics
which particular individuals in the institutions should comply with and failure to which there is a
possibility of the collapse of such institutions. The primary focus of the institutionalism is on the
individual behaviors in the society and this is especially in relation to culture displayed in a
particular community.
The sociological institutionalism also certain weaknesses and strengths. One key strength
entails, that there has been an increase in the different elements of institutions and this includes,
the informal procedures, institutional organization, conventions and routines which have all been
consolidated in the political arrangements. A fundamental weakness of the institutionalism is that
does not typically give a specification on the element of strategic behavior in most of the
organizational institutions and this is one of the fundamental weaknesses. Also,
it has failed to give an explanation of the different social goals of a variety of organizational
institutions and this is typical during the making of public policies by other government
agencies. There is, therefore, the need to enhance on integrating the social goals of institutions
during the formulation of public policy.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 11
References
Alasuutari, P., 2015. The discursive side of new institutionalism. Cultural Sociology, 9(2),
pp.162-184.
Amenta, E., Nash, K. and Scott, A., 2016. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political sociology.
John Wiley & Sons.
Andrews-Speed, P., 2016. Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy
transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, pp.216-225.
Conran, J. and Thelen, K.A., 2016. Institutional change. In The Oxford handbook of historical
institutionalism (pp. 51-70). Oxford University Press.
Farrell, H. and Finnemore, M., 2017. Global Institutions without a Global State. International
Politics and Institutions in Time, p.144.
Farrell, H., 2018. The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Historical
Institutionalism, and Sociological Institutionalism. In Knowledge and Institutions(pp. 23-44).
Springer, Cham.
Feinstein, N.W. and Meshoulam, D., 2014. Science for what public? Addressing equity in
American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3),
pp.368-394.
Fink, S. and Ruffing, E., 2017. The Differentiated Implementation of European Participation
Rules in Energy Infrastructure Planning. Why Does the German Participation Regime Exceed
European Requirements?. European Policy Analysis, 3(2), pp.274-294.
Fioretos, O., Falleti, T.G. and Sheingate, A., 2016. Historical institutionalism in political
science. The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism, pp.3-30.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 12
Gershenson, C. and Dobbin, F., 2015. Institutions and the Economy. Emerging Trends in the
Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. eds., 2017. The Sage handbook of
organizational institutionalism. Sage.
Healey, P., 2018. Developing a ‘Sociological Institutionalist’Approach to Analysing Institutional
Change in Place Governance. In The Routledge Handbook of Institutions and Planning in
Action (pp. 48-66). Routledge.
Hsieh, C.C., 2016. Teacher education reform and its impact on teachers colleges in Taiwan: An
analysis and reflections based on sociological institutionalism. Journal of Research in Education
Sciences, 61(2), pp.29-56.
Laursen, F., 2016. Regional integration: some introductory reflections. In Comparative Regional
Integration (pp. 25-42). Routledge.
Ohanyan, A., 2015. Network institutionalism: a new synthesis for NGO studies. In The NGO
challenge for international relations theory (pp. 102-124). Routledge.
Panov, P.V., 2015. Institutionalism (s): Explanatory Models and Casuality. Polis. Political
studies, 3(3), pp.39-55.
Risse, T., 2016. “Let’s argue!”: Communicative action in world politics (2000). In Domestic
Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations (pp. 260-299). Routledge.
Scharpf, F.W., 2018. Games real actors play Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research.
Routledge.
Sorensen, A., 2015. Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research
agenda in planning history. Planning Perspectives, 30(1), pp.17-38.

Policy, Governance and Democracy: International Perspective 13
Trampusch, C., 2014. Why preferences and institutions change: A systematic process analysis of
credit rating in G ermany. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), pp.328-344.