Limits to Institutional Isomorphism

Abstract

Neo-institutional approaches to the study of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) suggest that as more NGOs cooperate with the state, they become isomorphic in their structures and processes. Such cooperation is expected to threaten inventiveness of the NGO sector, including its spontaneity, variety, and unpredictability. This article analyzes the internal institutional processes of three leading housing NGOs as they each implemented cooperative strategies with the state in Mumbai, India. It finds that, contrary to customary apprehensions, NGOs use different tactics in response to the same public policy environment. The article argues that pervasive isomorphism is constrained by path dependency and variability in resource environments.

Alzheimer's Patient Organizations' Role in Enabling Citizenship Projects: A Comparison of the USA, Germany, and the UK

“…From the perspective of organizational sociology, this finding is in line with the neo-institutional approach in the context of "path dependency, " which implies institutional persistence and even fixation (Acheson, 2014) that follows historical-contextual rules and architectures (Bevir and Rhodes, 2010). Such path-dependency is also functional, representing "cultural fit, " and not (as often seen by neo-institutionalism) a constraint to change due to embeddedness in founding conditions, values, knowledge and structures (Romanelli, 1991;Ramanath, 2009). Our comparison of the activities of ALZ, DAG, and AS through their websites reflect that their activities foster differential modes of performing or contesting citizenships that are in line with their national socio-ethical context.…”

Money Moves the Mare: The Response of Community‐Based Organizations to Health Care's Embrace of Social Determinants

“…57,58 The key tenet of institutional theory, sometimes referred to as new institutionalism, is the idea that organizational characteristics are modified to increase the compatibility of an organization with its environment. 21,59 Viewed through this lens, the organizational modifications just outlined are intended to increase CBOs' ability to survive in a resource-scarce environment.…”

The Iron Cage Re‐revisited: Institutional Isomorphism in Non‐profit Organisations in South Africa

“…Institutional theory has come under attack for its limited analysis of processes of isomorphism and institutionalisation (Lok and Willmott, 2006;Ramanath, 2009) and inadequate treatment of agency and power (Clegg, 2010;Leca and Naccache, 2006;Phillips et al, 2004;Wilkinson, 1996). Friedland and Alford (1991) pointed out that organisations are typically confronted with multiple simultaneous logics that may or may not be compatible.…”

“…Managerialism has received considerable attention within critical development management studies (Dar and Cooke, 2008;Holmes, 2010;McCourt and Gulrajani, 2010;Murphy, 2008), yet little empirical analysis has been conducted through the lenses of institutional theory (e.g. Alves and Koga, 2006;Kontinen, 2005;Ramanath, 2009). We turn to this in the following section.…”