The paradox of embedded agency from a strong structuration perspective

Abstract

This paper uses Stones' Strong Structuration Theory (SST) that combines Giddens' duality and Archer's analytical dualism to deal with the paradox of embedded agency, focussing on resistance, in the budgeting literature. It also applies this framework to an illustrative case study that examines a failed attempt to implement performance based budgeting (PBB) in the Egyptian Sales Tax Department (ESTD). Design/methodology/approach We have used SST as an analytical framework. Longitudinal case study data were collected from interviews, observations, discussions and documentary analysis, and from publicly available reports and other media issued by the World Bank. Findings The SST framework identifies the circumstances in which middle managers as embedded agency have limited possibilities to change their dispositions to act and identify opportunities for emancipation in the wider social context in which they are embedded. The official explanation for the failure to implement PBB in Egypt was obstruction by middle managers. The findings of this study provide an alternative explanation to that published by the World Bank for the failure to institutionalise PBB in Egypt. It was found that the middle managers were the real supporters of PBB. Other parties and existing laws and regulations contributed to the failure of PBB. Research limitations/implications As a practical implication of the study, the analysis presented here offers an alternative interpretation of the failure of the Egyptian project for monitoring and evaluation to that published by the World Bank. This case and similar cases may enhance our understanding of how and when monitoring and evaluation technologies should be introduced at the global level, in order to manage conflicts of interest between agencies and beneficiaries. Originality/value This paper contributes to the extant management accounting literature on the use of structuration theory in addressing the paradox of embedded agency in making or resisting structural change. It uses SST to integrate Giddens' structuration theory (ST) with critical realist theory, incorporating duality and dualism in a stronger model of structuration. The SST framework offers a means of analysing case studies that result from interactions and conjunctures between different groups of actors, at different ontological levels. The paper also examines the issue of embedded agency in budgeting research using an illustrative case study from a developing country, Egypt.

Creating a sustainable ripple in rural entrepreneurship – the case of Deserttulip in resource-constrained rural Jordan

“…Alongside formal and informal institutions, resource constraints were stressed as barriers to entrepreneurs' praxis and enactment of policies (Coad and Glyptis, 2014). This confirms Kholeif and Jack (2019) and Elkafrawi et al .’s (2022) calls for stronger focus on external resources, which remain underexplored within the Structuration perspective. Limited resources identified included poor population density and finances (Newbery et al ., 2017; Müller and Korsgaard, 2018), alongside limited environmental resources (including soil saltiness and water shortages due to low rainfall) and structural resources (including poor water-preserving infrastructures).…”

“…This article also extends structuration literature – whereby agency is often bracketed out of attention (Coad and Glyptis, 2014; Kholeif and Jack, 2019) – by contributing to the underexamined “paradox of embedded agency in which structurally embedded agents are able to introduce structural change” (Kholeif and Jack, 2019, p. 61). Rather than viewing REs as victims of institutional constraints (Refai and McElwee, 2022), this study elaborates on position-practice–enabled outcomes by considering how entrepreneurs in constrained contexts empower other entrepreneurs' actions and foresee future position-practice relations, despite inadequate and hindering structures and resources (Coad and Glyptis, 2014).…”

“…The study employs the position-practice perspective, part of Stones' (2005) strong structuration theory (SST), thus contributing to minimising the theoretical gap in rural studies literature (Gittins et al ., 2022). Structuration lens has been employed in accountancy research (Jack and Kholeif, 2008; Coad and Glyptis, 2014; Kholeif and Jack, 2019), but less so in entrepreneurship research, with a focus mainly on understanding structures of signification (meanings through practice and discourse), domination (applying power to control resources) and legitimation (consisting of norms and values) (Elkafrawi et al ., 2022). Nevertheless, utilising the structuration lens to explore the manifestation of agents' roles within contexts remains under-explored (Coad and Glyptis, 2014; Elkafrawi et al ., 2022).…”

A conceptual model of accountants' communication inside not-for-profit organisations

“…It was not easy to discern the extent to which the accountants interpreted their own roles independently of their organisational positions. These findings add support to Kholeif and Jack's (2019) insights into the interplay between internal and external structures. Furthermore, the building of general-dispositions is not given detailed consideration in the theory.…”

In search of public values in performance budgeting studies

“…• Institutional theory (Mauro et al, 2018) • Neo-institutional theory (Cohen & Karatzimas, 2014) • Organizational change theory (Cohen & Karatzimas, 2014) • Incentive mechanisms theory (Hou et al, 2011) • Budgetary decision-making theory (Wang, 2008) • Dialogue theory (Moynihan, 2006) • New public management theory (Ferris & Graddy, 1998) • Principal agency theory (Ferris & Graddy, 1998) • Grounded theory (Aliabadi et al, 2019) • Theory of system (Amirkhani et al, 2019) • Organizational theory (Amirkhani et al, 2019) • Strong structuration theory (Kholeif & Jack, 2019) • Critical realist theory (Kholeif & Jack, 2019) • Organizational change theory (Mauro et al, 2018) • Agency theory (Raudla & Savi, 2015) • Interactive-dialogue theory (Raudla & Savi, 2015) • Social exchange theory (Kramer & Hartmann, 2014) • Institutional theory (Fowler, 2009) • System theory (Soffan, 2020) • Theory of change (Paul & Renmans, 2018) • Complexity theory (Mischen & Sinclair, 2017) • New public management theory (Cai et al, 2014) • Structuration theory (Ehrenhard et al, 2012) debated, determined, and evaluated by policymakers, budget managers, and key stakeholders in the public budgeting process. Effort that strives to maximize this social utility is the essence of performance budgeting.…”