FROM HYBRID INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS TO SOLIDARITY CAPITAL

The aim of the paper is to analyse the process of the creation of the hybrid organizational form and the mechanisms of its action. The paper is theory oriented and is based on new institutionalism and hybridity. The research question is how a hybrid organization efficiently functions while simultaneously drawing on three different and partially contradictory institutional logics: commercial (profit-oriented activities), social (non-profit activities), and public (focused on the provision of high-quality social services). We argue that the core mechanism of action of the new organizational form is the solidarity capital.

Theoretical and Methodological Features of Europeanization and New Institutionalism

It is identified in the paper that one of the important prerequisites for implementing an effective European integration policy is to consider the theories of Europeanization and new institutionalism. The essence of the concepts of "Europeanization" and "new institutionalism" is studied, the evolution of theoretical approaches to their research is considered, and the directions of studying "external" Europeanization were analyzed. The paper proves that the concept of Europeanization is widely used in the European scientific literature to analyze the political and regulatory influence of the European Union on new EU member states and neighboring countries, as well as the fundamental mechanisms of Europeanization. The author notes that Europeanization implies changes, transformations, and reforms taking place in all spheres of life under the influence of European integration processes, which can be analyzed from the standpoint of new institutionalism. The key provision of the new institutionalism is defined by the commonly used expression – "institutions matter", whose analytical priorities are to use a wide range of interdisciplinary approaches to the analysis of norms, institutions and processes.

1. Why EU institutions matter:

The European Union (EU) cannot be understood without reference to its institutions. But scholars differ on the questions of what precisely EU institutions are, what they do, and why they matter. This chapter defines EU institutions as decision-making bodies. It refers to the notion of EU institutional politics as the sphere of informal and formal rules, norms, procedures, and practices that shape such decision-making. The chapter explores how different theoretical traditions—international relations, integration theory, new institutionalism, the separation of powers, governance, public policy and administration approaches, and critical perspectives—think about EU institutions. Drawing on these traditions, this chapter encourages readers to think about EU institutions along five dimensions: intergovernmental versus supranational, international versus transnational, separated versus fused power, leaders versus followers, and contested versus legitimate. Seeing how the Union’s decision-making bodies move within and between these dimensions offers a deeper understanding of why EU institutions matter.

Part I Context, Ch.4 Multilevel and Polycentric Governance

This chapter discusses leading conceptual approaches to international environmental governance. These approaches draw on arguments found in diverse literatures, including writings on fiscal federalism, the new institutionalism, international relations, and international law. The chapter first reviews a prominent set of arguments in favour of decentralized environmental governance, and a competing set of claims in favour of greater centralization of governance authority. These approaches, in general, seek to produce the appropriate ‘match’ between the level or scope of governance and the level or scope of the relevant environmental issue. The chapter then considers ‘multilevel governance’ (MLG), an approach that does not view the allocation of authority among levels as mutually exclusive but rather explores how authority can be simultaneously exercised by multiple agents. It also looks at approaches that emphasize the horizontal sharing of governance authority. Finally, the chapter presents strategies for advancing understanding of international environmental governance.

Lordly Management and its Discontents: ‘Human Resource Management’ in Pakistan

New institutionalism increasingly informs work on comparative human resource management (HRM), downplaying power and how competing logics play out, and potentially providing an incomplete explanation of how and why ‘HRM’ and associated practices vary in different national contexts. We examine HRM in Pakistan’s banking industry and assess how managers’ espoused views of HRM practices reflect prevailing ones in dominant HRM models, and how they differ from early-career professionals’ perceptions of these practices. The cultural script of ‘seth’ (a neo-feudalist construction of authority) influences managers’ implementation of HRM policies and competes with the espoused HRM logic. We argue that managers will pursue a ‘seth’ logic when managing employees, as it reproduces existing power differentials within companies. By doing so, they render HRM unrecognizable from dominant models. Indeed, by using the term ‘HRM’, much of the existing, new institutionalism-influenced literature rationalizes a particular view of organizations and management that is inappropriate and analytically misleading in emerging economies.

Reconciling conflicting predictions about transience and persistence of management concepts in management fashion theory and new institutionalism

Purpose Although drawing from neoinstitutional theoretical apparatus and ontology, management fashion theory is understood as a theory that explains the transitory nature of popular ideas and practices while institutional theory explains their stabilization, persistence and further institutionalization. In a nutshell, it seems that being opposed to each other, these two theories describe and predict different, incommensurable diffusion trajectories and organizational behaviour patterns. The purpose of this paper is to unify these two competing perspectives. Design/methodology/approach This paper makes an attempt toward further unification of management fashion theory with new institutionalism by offering an alternative understanding and conceptualization of institutional change and deinstitutionalization and by distinguishing emerging concepts from already popular fashions. Findings Most emerging concepts never achieve popularity and disappear while few of them achieve massive media attention and diffuse widely becoming new management fashions. Once these concepts have achieved a wide popularity institutional forces would favor them and lead to further institutionalization. Institutional change is understood not as a deinstitutionalization of existing management fashion in terms of erosion, discontinuity or disappearance but as a decline in its media coverage while media attention focuses on new fashionable concept. The former management fashion gets institutionalized, institutional change occurs in terms of shifting attention toward new fashion and diffusion and institutionalization cycle restarts. Institutional prediction of isomorphism and institutionalization as irreversible tendencies thus can be unified with MF prediction about the bell-shaped curves in fashions’ popularity. Therefore, postulates and predictions of management fashion theory can be derived from new institutionalism and vice versa. Practical implications The paper aims to cover, generalize and explain different trajectories of various management and organizational concepts, deducing theoretical propositions from both institutional theory and management fashion theory. Theoretical and methodological ideas offered in this paper can be helpful in future research on management fashions and diffusion. Studies on the evolution of management concept can benefit from proposed categorization and causal relationships between different stages of the life cycle. Originality/value Unifying seemingly conflicting and disparate perspectives and views allows making organization theory more coherent in terms of both explanatory power and ontological commensurability. Following other mature sciences, we share the same notion of progress, namely, the aim of achieving unification and demonstrating that different organizational theories still describe the same reality.

TAX REORIENTATION AS CORRUPTION PREVENTION ON INVESTMENT IN INDONESIA

Investments, that are supposed to increase the country's economic growth and tax revenues, have potentially created "unofficial" costs for investors and unreported informal income of the bribe recipients. It is important to conduct library research using the new institutionalism theory with historical institutionalism approach in answering the main problem. It is concluded that tax reorientation could prevent corruption on investment in Indonesia. The actors involved in investment, even though, will be limited collectively by government organizations, but the existing restrictions are the design of systems that can influence individuals and groups to prevent corruption. Restrictions of the tax authority can be imposed through several ways, such as enforcing bribes as the non-deductible expense and as an income tax object of gifts to the givers, applying bribes as income to the recipients, recommending non-penal sanctions, and blacklisting the individuals or legal entities involved in corruption.

Is unified institutional economics possible?

In recent years, some papers were published with the aim to integrate the original institutional economics and new institutional economics. This paper considers the possibility to solve this problem. To do this, it has analyzed four tasks: firstly, how do the original institutionalists characterize their scientific program specificity; secondly, how do the original institutionalists criticize new institutional economics; thirdly, what do they mean by the integration of original institutional economics and new institutional economics, that they have been observing since the 1990s and fourthly, what do they propose as a integration program. The analysis showed that the explicit methodology of original institutionalism, in fact, attributes to it characteristics, which are very close to the properties of “folk theory”. New institutional economics’ criticism is often based on the distorted interpretations of this scientific research program. The authors typically understand as the institutionalisms’ similarity the facts of the new institutionalism development by Douglass North, who used the data of the empirical behavioral research, but not the claims of original institutionalism. The method of integration proposed in the literature presupposes the adoption of the old institutionalism methodology by the new institutionalism, which could drastically reduce the quality of its research. The paper concludes that under present-day conditions, it is practically impossible to create a unified institutional economics.

Basic theories of modern institutionalism

Institutionalism went through a difficult historical path of its development, went through several stages, each of which was accompanied by the renewal of methodology and theoretical foundations. Consistently at each stage, a corresponding independent direction arose: old institutionalism, new institutionalism (new institutional economics) and neoinstitutionalism (neoinstitutional economics). Modern institutionalism is a qualitatively new direction of economic thought, based on the theoretical principles of economic analysis of the neoclassical school in terms of identifying trends in the development of the economy, as well as the methodological tools of the German historical school in the approach to the study of socio-psychological problems of the development of society.