Practical Foundation of Educational Management & Governance

1. 第九、十講社會制度：教育管理与治理的实践基础（四）Social Institution: Practical Foundation of Educational Management & Governance (4) 華東師範大學 教育管理學系 教育管理与教育治理的实践基础工作坊

2. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Herbert A. Simon stipulated that administration is a practical science in search of a way “to get things done.” (1945/1997, P. 1) In the precedent lectures, we have examine ways • to get things done effectively. That is to plan and execute the task in point according to the principles of cognitive-instrumental rationality and the imperatives of coercive power

3. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • …. a way “to get things done.” … • to get things done collectively and publicly. That is in most of human projects and agencies, an individual, no matter how rational (including knowledgable) and capable he or she is, he/she cannot have accomplished the project in point all by him/herself. He/she need to collaborate with his/her fellow humans to accomplish the task. Accordingly, he/she must plan and execute the task at hand not only in line with cognitive-instrumental rationality but also comply with the principles of communicative rationality. …..

4. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • …. a way “to get things done.” … • ….. Furthermore, he/she must also follow the imperatives of communicative power, and reasonably and impartially design his/her project in point in legitimate and just fashion. • However, the task of getting-things-done requires another practical foundation, namely institution. The way to get things done should not be in accidental, idiosyncratic and ephemeral manner. It must be carried out in regular, consistent, continuous and predictable manner; in short, to get things institutionally.

5. 2nd Order 1st Order 3rd Order Hierarchy Market Capacities of delivering mean-end rational effectiveness & efficiency Capacities of building regular, continuous, & resilient institutional rules Capacities of constituting common values, norms & principles for legitimation Network Community Network Professional Network Intergovernmental Network Producer Network Issue Network Metagovernance Foundation of Public Reason & Legitimation Foundation of Rationality & Power Foundation of Social Institution Interactive Governance Polycentric Governance New Public Service

6. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • To begin with, we may simply define social institution as any human interactions which bear the features of regularity, repetitiveness, endurance and resilience. In light of this operational definition, we can see why researchers from different disciplines in social sciences have paid such consistent attentions to the concept of institution. It is because enduring patterns of human interactions, such as market, government, state, dynasty, family, religion, ethnicity, nation, etc. are the core subject matters of economics, political science, sociology and anthropology.

7. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • In economics, Douglas North, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 1993, indicates, “Institutions are rules of the game in a society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)

8. Douglas North Nobel Lareate in Economic Science in 1993 Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 1993

9. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • Elinor Ostrom, prominent political scientist and the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009, states, “Broadly defined, institutions are the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions including those within families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues, churches, private associations, and government at all scales. Individuals interacting within rule-structured situations face choices regarding the actions and strategies they take, leading to consequences for themselves and for others." (Ostrom, 2005, P.3)

10. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • In political science and public administration, James March and Johan Olsen, two prominent scholars in public administration and political science, writes, “An institution is a relatively enduring collection of rules and organized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing external circumstances.” (March & Olsen, 2006, p.3) ….

11. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • …. According, the suggest that in institutions • “There are constitutive rules and practices prescribing appropriate behavior for specific actors in specific situations. • There are structures of meaning, embedded in identities and belongings: common purposes and accounts that give direction and meaning to behavior, and explain, justify and legitimate behavioral codes. • There are structures of resources that create capabilities for action.” (ibid, my numbering)

12. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Conception of institution: • In sociology, Emile Durkheim, one of the founding father of sociology writes, “Without doing violence to the meaning of the word, one may term an institution all the beliefs and modes of behaviour instituted by the collectivity; sociology can then be defined as the science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning.” (1982/1895, P. 45)

13. 1858-1917

14. How to “Get Things Done” Effectively, Publicly and Institutionally? • Taken together, in studying public administration and policy, or more specifically, educational management and governance, one essential and necessary approach is to account for how and why a particular mode of governance could have endured through time and prevailed against challenge and opposition, in short, could have institutionalized.

15. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • New institutionalism: As a theoretical perspective emerged in different disciplines and fields in social sciences since the 1980s, new institutionalism has provide a system of conceptual and theoretical apparatuses, which have laid a promising ground for researchers to search for regularities and orders in complex and transformational social world. As for the field of public administration and policy, the perspective of new institutionalism could shed light on the problem of how to get things done in regular, consistent, continuous and predictable bases; or more specifically how can a particular mode of governance consolidate, sustain, and institutionalized.

16. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • It was in 1984, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen published an article entitled “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life” in The American Political Science Review that the term “new institutionalism” was coined. They underline that the perspective of new institutionalism perspective is the reaction to the prevailing perspectives in political sciences in the 1960s and 70s. One is the “old institutionalism” in point is that it focuses on studying of the political institutions on formal-legal structure and procedures of political institutions, such as the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

17. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • ….. The other perspective in point is the political behavior approach, which applies the behaviorism in psychology and concentrate on analyzing the political behaviors of individual political actors, such as voters and their voting behaviors. In reaction to these perspectives, the new institutionalism focuses on the political meanings, symbols and cultures that constitute the regularity and durability underwriting the political institution and its structures.

18. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • In economics, initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to the methodological individualism found in economics, which manifest in theories of rational choice of pure homo economicus (economic man). In reaction to tis perspective, new institutionalism put its emphasis on meanings, identity and cultures underlying human behaviors and choice (most notably Ostrom, 2014; and Sen, 1977). ….

19. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • ….. Hence, the new institutionalism reinstates the methodological collectivism (or more specifically methodological institutionalism) in economics by accounting for economic actions with social units such as firms, classes, status groups, ethnic groups, nation, and in more general sense the commons.

20. Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009 Oliver E. Williamson & Elinor Ostrom (1932- (1933-2012)

21. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly in reaction to the legal-rational system model prevailing in organization studies and the structural-functionalism dominating the marco-sociological studies, such as development studies. Based on the social phenomenological perspective made popular by Berger and Luckmann in their work The Social Construction of Reality (1967), new institutionalists emphasize the informal structure and culture of organization and the subjectivity, definitions of situations and roles, and identity underlying patterned interactions and enduring practices. ….

22. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism • What so new about the new institutionalism? • In sociology, …. In Berger and Luckmann’s terms, new institutionalist approach the structure─agent dilemma in sociologcial studies with a “dialectic” conception. That is society is taken as both as objective and subjective reality and these two realities are engaged in “an ongoing dialectical process composed of the three moments of externalization, objectivation, internalization.” (Berger & Luckmann, 1967, p. 149)

24. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor have distinguished three perspectives in new institutionalism in political science: Historical Institutionalism: This perspective tends to see enduring human behavior-patterns as outcomes evolve from specific historical and socio-economic contexts.Hence “historical institutionalists tend to view have a view of institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and unintended consequences.” (P. 938) “Historical institutionalists define institutionthe formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy. They can range from the rules of a conventional order or the standard operating procedures of a bureaucracy to the conventional governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.” (P. 938) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

25. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Historical Institutionalism: … “In this perspective, the individual is seen as an entity deeply embedded in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts and routines, which provide the filters for interpretation, of both the situation and oneself, out of which a course of action is constructed. Not only do institutions provide strategically-useful information, they also affect the very identities, self-images and preferences of the actions.” (p. 939)\ The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

26. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Rational-choice institutionalism: “The rational choice institutionalists in political science drew fruitful analytical tools from the ‘new economics of organization’, which emphasizes the importance of property rights, rent-seeking, and transactions costs, to the operation and development of institutions. Especially influential was Willamson’s argument that the particular organizational form can be explained as the result of an effort to reduce the transaction cost of undertaking the same activity without such as institutions.” (P. 943) Rational-choice institutionalists “posit that the relevant actors have a fixed set of preferences or tastes, …behave entirely instrumentally so to maximize the attainment of these preferences and do so in a highly strategic manner that presumes extensive calculation.” (Pp. 944-945) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

27. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Rational-choice institutionalism:… “Rational-choice institutionalist tend to see politics as a series of collective action dilemmas. The latter can be defined as instances when individuals acting to maximizing the attainment of their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively suboptimal. …Typically, what prevents the actors from taking a collectively-superior course of action is absence of institutional arrangements that would guarantee complementary behaviour by others. Classic examples includes the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ and the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the political situations present a varieties of such problems.” (P. 945) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

28. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Sociological institutionalism: "The sociological institutionalists tend to define institutions …not just formal rules, procedures or norms, but the symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that provide the 'frames of meaning' guiding human action." (p. 948) Accordingly, they "argue that many of the institutional forms and procedures used by organizations were not adopted simply because they were most efficient for the tasks at hand. …Instead, they argued that many forms and procedures should be seen as culturally-specific practices, akin to themyths and ceremonies derived by many societies." (p. 947) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

29. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Sociological institutionalism: … To some sociologists of new institutionalism, individual actions are construed as role performances or prescriptive norms of behavior attached in particular institutional contexts. "In this view, individuals who have been socialized into particular institutional roles internalize the norms associated with these roles, and in this way institutions are said to affect behaviour." (P. 948) Furthermore, some sociological institutionalists "emphasize the way in which institutions influence behaviour by providing thecognitive scripts, categories and models that are indispensable for action, not least because without them the world and the behaviour of others cannot be interpreted. Institutions influence behaviour not simply by specifying what one should do but also by specifying what one can imagine oneself in a given context." (p. 948) The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

30. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor … Sociological institutionalism: … One of the distinctive features of the sociological institutionalism is the explanation it offered for the endurance of institutional practices. Instead of accounting them for rational-choices out of game situations or traditional "dependent paths" inherited from the past, sociologists in new institutionalism strive to reveal the legitimate bases from which reciprocal practices among social actors derived and consensual arrangements among reasonable agents endure. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

31. Normative Institutionalism: More recently, B. Guy Peters (2005) argue that “the root of the new institutionalism” is founded in what called “normative institutionalism”. Peters suggests that one of the basis of the endurance, resilience, and persistence of patterned actions found among a definite group of people, i.e. the institution, is the sense of appropriateness, righteousness, legitimation, and duty and calling, which are planted deeply in sense and minds of the designated group of persons… The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

32. Normative Institutionalism: … He argues that it is this “principle of appropriateness” (March, 1989) which motivate persons in particular roles in the respective institutions to perform the prescribed duties against all odds even in views of scarifying their own lives, such as firemen, civil soldiers, etc. It is this deep sense of moral appropriateness which lends an institution its endurance, resilience and persistence across space and time. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

34. John Campbell has further made categorizations of perspectives in new institutionalism as follow The Perspectives in New Institutionalism

35. Source: Campbell 2004, P. 1

37. March & Olsen’s contribution: James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, professors of political science, coin the concept of New Institutionalism in an article published in The American Political Science Review in 1984. In that article they have also injected a typology of “institutional order”, which has moved the institutional order analysis beyond the two conventional explanation, namely order by hierarchical-organization and order by competition and coercion. (March & Olen, 1984, P. 743) Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

38. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: To advance beyond the orders by hierarchical organization and by competition and coercion, March and Oslen suggest that new institutionalism can add in another six other types of institutional orders: Historical order: … Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

39. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Historical order: It refers to the essential concept of “the efficiency of historical processes” in new institutionalism. By efficiency of historical process, it refers to the way in which history moves quickly and inexorably to a unique outcome, normally in some sense an optimum.” (March & Olsen, 1984, p. 743) Accordingly, the internal order of an institution will be constrained by the particular period in history and the institutional order will strive hard to maintain a condition of optimum with its historical order. However, there may be situations in which the institutional order is lagging behind the transformation of the historical order, As a result, it will cause what March and Oslen called “inefficiency of history”. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

40. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Temporal order: The concept is specifically coined by March and Oslen to stand against the concept of “causal order”, which is commonly used in theoretical perspective of means-ends rational actions and the methodological approach of positivistic deduction. March and Oslen suggest, “Temporal order provides an alternative in which linkages are less consequential than temporal. Things are connected by virtue of their simultaneous presence or arrivals. …In many human situations (such as institution) the most easily identified property of objects or events in the time subscripts associated with them.” (March & Oslen, 1984, P. 743) For example, in educational institutions things are mostly specified by their temporal orders, such as year of graduation of students, year of publication of books, examination year, school terms, etc. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

41. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Endogenous orders: In response to the exogenous order commonly applied by conventional studies of political science in accounting for institutional changes, perspective of new institutionalism look into the endogenous order espoused within the internal mechanism of a social institution, such as shift in preferences and values among significant participants within an institution, upset of balance of power within an institution, unanticipated consequences espoused from conventional path of dependence in an institutional context, etc. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

42. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Normative orders: In reaction to the permeation of the theory rational choice and self-interest politics in political research, March and Oslen underline that “action is often more on discovering the normatively appropriate behavior than on calculating the return expected from alternative choice.” (March & Olsen, 1984, P. 744) Accordingly, March and Oslen have coined yet another mostly-used concept in new institutionalism, namely “logic of appropriateness” (in contrast with the “logic of consequentiality”) (March & Oslen, 1989, Pp. 23-24) Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

43. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Demographic order: Social institutions can also be reviewed by looking into the demographic features of the incumbents of key positions or simple members of the organization. March and Oseln suggest that “” a human institution can be studied and interpreted as the cross-section of the lives of the people involved. …A focus on institutional demography combines such a version of organized life with attention to a property of individual live that is itself a product of the institutional structure ─ the individual career.” (March & Oslen, 1984, P. 744) Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

44. March & Olsen’s contribution: Six types of institutional orders: Symbolic order: March and Oslen underlines that “Symbols permeate politics in a subtle and diffuse way, providing interpretive coherence to political life.”(1984, P. 744) Hence, they suggest that in accounting for the enduring order of an institution, we should pay particular “attention to the ordering force of symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and drama in political life.” (1984, P. 744) In one of the pioneer works on new institutionalist study of education, Meyer and Rowan (1977) argues that the institutional structures and organizations in modern schooling systems are products of the “ordering forces” of the myth and ideology of the modernization and rationalization project orchestrated by modern states. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

45. March & Olsen’s contribution: Logic of appropriateness: March and Olsen have subsequently developed their perspective of new-institutionalism in series of work, (most notably 1989 & 1995). In those work, they have developed the conceptual dichotomy, namely the logic of consequentiality and the logic of appropriateness. “In logic of consequentiality, behavior are driven by preferences and expectations about consequences. Behavior is willful, reflecting an attempt to make outcome fulfill subjective desires, to the extent possible. Within such a logic, a sane person is one who is ‘in touch with reality’ in the sense of maintaining consistency between behavior and realistic expectations of its consequences.” (March & Oslen, 1989, P. 160) Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

46. March & Olsen’s contribution: Logic of appropriateness: … … In a logic of appropriateness,…behavior (beliefs as well as action) are intentional but not willful. They involve fulfilling of obligations of a role in a situation, and so of trying to determine the imperatives of holding a position. Action stems from a conception of necessity, rather than preference. Within the logic of appropriateness, a sane person is one who is ‘in touch with identity’ in the sense of maintaining consistency between behavior and a conception of self in a social role.” (1989, P. 160-161) March and Oslen has written two “litanies for action” to illustrate the differences between these two logic Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

49. March & Olsen’s contribution: Conceptions of rules, role and identity In light of the conception of the logic of appropriateness, March and Oslen further develop a conceptual framework to account for political and social actions within the institutional context. To March and Oslen, political and social actions are not solely derived from self-interest calculations and anticipation of consequences, instead actions should be allocated “within a broader framework of rules, roles, and identity.” (March & Oslen, 1995, P.29; see also Pp. 49-89) Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance

50. March & Olsen’s contribution: Conceptions of rules, role and identity Rules: In new institutionalist perspective, rules are not simply construed as formal regulations governing actions of members of an institution. They are further defined as identifications, interpretations, evaluation, and believes that members of an institution attribute to these regulations and their actual enforcements. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance