The dynamics of institutionalization: transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries - includes appendix

Administrative Science Quarterly, Sept, 1995 by Petter Holm

Nested systems. In a nested-systems perspective, a distinction is made between action guided by institutions, on the one hand, and action aimed explicitly at manipulating institutional parameters, on the other (Ciricay-Wantrup, 1985; Ostrom, 1986, 1990). It is useful to think of these two modes of action as hierarchically ordered. The institutional arrangements at one level constitute the subject matter of an institutional system at a higher level (Burns and Flam, 1987; Jepperson, 1991). Professional soccer, for instance, is played by rules set down by the international soccer federation, FIFA. Players might be unhappy with the rules. To change them, however, they must engage in a rather differently structured game than soccer, i.e., that of influencing FIFA's policy-making bodies. While the mode of action at the first level can be characterized as practical, the mode of action at the second level is political.

When first-order institutions are defined by second-order institutional systems, institutional change may originate at either of the two levels. An event at the first-order level, for instance if technological change has undermined established institutions, may set off corrective actions at the second-order level. How this comes about depends on the relationship between the two levels of action. First, there is a qualitative break between levels: The pattern of practices at the first level cannot be completely defined at the next (Parsons, 1960). This means that substantial disturbances at the first-order level may be absorbed at that level. It also means that there sometimes will be institutional drift, such that institutions at the first-order level can be modified without this being noticed or sanctioned at the second-order level (Zucker, 1988). Institutional change may also originate at the second-order level (or higher). Sometimes an institution that is regarded as legitimate and efficient by its primary user groups is swept away by more general institutional reforms. Sometimes an institutional innovation that has been unsuccessfully promoted for an extended period of time suddenly becomes possible because of shifts within the larger field of power and social structure (Starr, 1982; Brint and Karabel, 1991). Second, although the two levels of action are qualitatively different and should be kept analytically distinct, there are interconnections between them. The relationships between levels are structured. This means that there will be rules defining what type of problems at the first-order level of action can legitimately be considered at the second-order level, the proper procedures for doing that, who can participate in decision making, and so on. It also means that there will be rules defining and limiting the authority of the second-order level toward the first-order level. Hence, whether a "problem" at the first-order level of action will trigger institutional change depends on the ease with which it can be translated to the second-order level, if it can be attached to a "solution" there, and whether this "decision" can be translated back to the first-order level (March and Olsen, 1976).