2de Docsem Paper

8/9/2019 2de Docsem Paper

1/22

INSTITUTIONALISOMORPHISMINTHESLAVICCOREOFTHECOMMONWEALTHOFINDEPENDENTSTATES

Lien Verpoest

2ndPhD Seminar

Faculty of Social Sciences

12 February 2007

Abstract

This paper sums up the main research uestion! theoretical frame"or# and

methodolo$ical approach of the doctoral research on %&nstitutional

&somorphism in the Sla'ic (ore of the (&S) in order to lay the $round"or# for

my second doctoral seminar on February 12th2007*A brief introduction outlines the current situation of $eopolitical pluralism in

the post+So'iet area and formulates the research uestion*

A second section of the paper del'es deeper into the theoretical frame"or# of

the doctoral study* After pointin$ out some theoretical 'oids in the ne"

institutionalism! the focus shifts to"ards institutional isomorphism* The

theory of institutional isomorphism ser'es as the main theoretical premise for

this doctoral study and has the potential for e,plainin$ institutional chan$e* &

conseuently de'elop my analytical model startin$ from the isomorphism

theory* &n this analytical model! & describe t"o sta$es for the research! the

-rst bein$ structuration and institutional defnition towards organisational

feldsand the second institutional isomorphism* &n the -rst sta$e & enumerate

the four or$anisational characteristics that can indicate institutional

rapprochement* &n the second sta$e & distin$uish bet"een t"o di.erent an$les

of isomorphism that mi$ht ser'e as e,planatory factors of $eopolitical

pluralism in the post+So'iet area/ origins and patterns o institutional change

and sources o variation in institutional change*

&n the third section of my paper! & hi$hli$ht the methodolo$ical approaches

opted for in the doctoral research/ the comparati'e research cycle and

methodolo$ical trian$ulation the or$anisational process model as a frame"or#for lin#in$ the study of institutional chan$e and forei$n policy analysis the

choice of countries the choice of institutions and the -eld"or#* A brief

conclusion sums up the research uestion and its corollaries and the 'alue of

institutional isomorphism as a sociolo$ical theory for studyin$ political

institutions and forei$n policy*

1


2/22

INTRODUCTION: GEOPOLITICALPLURALISMINEASTERNEUROPE

THEORETICALFRAMEWORK

1. The Void of Ex!"i#i#$ I#%&i&'&io#"! Ch"#$e

(. I##o)"&io# &h*o'$h Ad"&"&io#: I#%&i&'&io#"! I%o+o*hi%+

2*1* Sta$e ne/ Structuration and &nstitutional De-nition to"ards

r$anisational Fields

2*2* Sta$e T"o/ &nstitutional &somorphism

a. Origins and Patterns o Institutional Changeb. Sources o Variation / Heterogeneit in Institutional Change

RESEARCHDESIGNANDMETHODOLOG,

1. Co+"*"&i)e A#"!-%i% of I#%&i&'&io#%

(. A Co+"*"&i)e A#"!-&i"! /Re%e"*h C-!e0

. I#%&i&'&io#"! h"#$e "#d Fo*ei$# Po!i-: The O*$"#i%"&io#"!

P*oe%% Mode!

2. Choie of Co'#&*ie%

3. Choie of I#%&i&'&io#%

4. Me&hod% "#d D"&" Co!!e&io#

CONCLUSION

2


3/22

INTRODUCTION: GEOPOLITICALPLURALISMINEASTERNEUROPE

The post+So'iet space accommodates a "hole ran$e of di'er$ent domestic

and forei$n policy choices* De$rees of democratisation and mar#et reform! let

alone of institutional reform! 'ary amon$ the So'iet successor states Lin3 4

Stepan 1556! Pi'o'aro' 4 Furso' 1555* 8ot only on the economic and social

le'el! but also in their forei$n policy! the former So'iet states are follo"in$

di.erent tra9ectories*

The establishment of the (ommon"ealth of &ndependent States (&S on :

December 1551 entan$led the $eopolitical situation in the post+So'iet space

e'en more as it con9oined di.erent countries "ith di'er$ent policy $oals into

one or$anisation* Some member states e*$* ;#raine1 percei'ed the (&S as

an ele$ant solution to brin$ about a %ci'ilised di'orce) elarus on the other hand sa" its main purpose in

co+ordinatin$ the economic and security policies amon$ the So'iet successorstates2! especially because of the comple, economic interdependence of the

re$ion* Tellin$ly! =ussia en'isioned the (&S+construction as an adeuate

frame"or# to re+assert her leadin$ role in the post+So'iet re$ion* Fifteen

years alon$ the road of putati'e (&S inte$ration! institutional de'elopment of

the (&S has stalled! and inte$ration e.orts ha'e dissipated o'er the (&S area

?al$in 2002! Sa#"a 4 @ebber 1555* The members of the (&S ha'e become

in'ol'ed in a host of other sub+re$ional initiati'es li#e the ;;A?! the

Burasian Bconomic (ommunity! the ;nion bet"een =ussia and >elarus! and

the Sin$le Bconomic SpaceCPenner 200C! Splidsboel+ansen 2000*

&n 'ie" of these de'elopments! "e could claim that the post+communist

transition has led to a si$ni-cantly hetero$eneous political landscape in the

post+So'iet space* 'er the past -fteen years "e ha'e "itnessed the

e'olution from a unitary So'iet state to an area containin$ a 'ariety of forei$n

policy $oals ran$in$ from B; membership to re$ional inte$ration* &n late

1557! Eatulin and ?i$ranian reco$nised in an article that $eopolitical

pluralism had arri'ed in the former ;SS= elarus!


4/22

former So'iet states! in di.erent political models on "hich the 8e"ly

&ndependent States based themsel'es durin$ transition or di'ersity in

economic transition and trade lin#s* Also! the di'er$ent forei$n policy

preferences epitomise the path of de'elopment these countries ha'e

embar#ed upon*

?y doctoral study intends to assess ho" $eopolitical pluralism is reGected in

the institutional chan$e of =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus by situatin$ these

three former ;nion =epublics bet"een t"o %or$anisational -elds) on the

Buropean continent/ the Buropean ;nion and the (ommon"ealth of

&ndependent States* =ussia! >elarus and ;#raine each ha'e de'eloped their

o"n political and institutional transition* There are clear similarities and

di.erences in the democratic de'elopment! the institutional build+up and the

reor$anisation of their administrations* The disparate institutional de'elopment

and apparent di'er$ence in forei$n policy preferences can therefore lead to theuestion "hether the institutions and state administration in these three

countries ha'e been drafted to the li#in$ of the B; or of the (&S+co+operation

structure* ?ore speci-cally! the core uestion of this research is/

!"hich mechanisms within the political institutions o #ussia$ %&raine and

'elarus generate !isomorphism( toward the )uropean %nion and the

Commonwealth o Independent States$ and what is the rationale behind the

divergent oreign polic orientations in the Slavic Core o the CISH)

4


5/22

THEORETICALFRAMEWORK

&n this section! & "ill focus on institutional isomorphism! the speci-c ne"+

institutionalist approach used in this study* This application of or$anisational

analysis "ill be presented and elaborated in detail! after "hich & "ill mo'e on

to the methodolo$ical aspects of the study*

1. The Void of Ex!"i#i#$ I#%&i&'&io#"! Ch"#$e

!Our di*culties with the new institutionalism have less to do with its tenets than with its silences( +'rint ,

-arabel 0 12

ne of the de-nite stron$ points of ne" institutionalism is its

interdisciplinarity* 8e" institutionalist approaches can be found not only inpolitical science! but also in economic! sociolo$ical and e'en historical

comparati'e analysis* Althou$h all try to contri'e a comprehensi'e 'ie" on

institutions! di.erent applications of institutionalism each focus on

e,poundin$ a speci-c aspect of the institution* o"e'er! most applications

but one stru$$le to come to terms "ith the aspect of institutional chan$e*

Sociolo$ical institutionalism ho"e'er! and more speci-cally or$anisational

analysisI succeeds in %illustratin$ the e,planatory potential of institutional

theory in an area in "hich it has been relati'ely silent/ the analysis of

or$anisational chan$e) Po"ell4Di?a$$io 1551/ 1* @ithin or$anisational

analysis! the theory of institutional isomorphismmi$ht pro'ide a satisfactory

ans"er to the uestions that arise "hen studyin$ post+communist institutional

processes in the Sla'ic core of the (ommon"ealth of &ndependent States*

(. I##o)"&io# &h*o'$h Ad"&"&io#: I#%&i&'&io#"! I%o+o*hi%+

A part of the sociolo$ical institutionalist approach! institutional isomorphism

"as -rst put for"ard by @alter Po"ell and Paul J* Di?a$$io in their 15:C article

%3he Iron Cage #evisited0 Institutional Isomorphism and Collective #ationalitin Organisational 4ields(American Sociolo$ical =e'ie" : 2! 15:C*

Po"ell and Di?a$$io ar$ue that the causes of bureaucratisation and

rationalisation ha'e chan$ed* Accordin$ to them! structural chan$e is less and

less dri'en by the need for eKciency* They contend that or$anisational chan$e

5&t should be noted! ho"e'er! that or$anisational analysis does not specify any clear distinctions bet"eenthe concept of %institution) and that of %or$anisation) but rather prefer to slide from one noun to the otherScott 155! in Peters 1555* et other disciplines in institutional analysis also fail to ma#e this distinction*

5


6/22

occurs as the result of processes that ma#e or$anisations more similar "ithout

necessarily ma#in$ them more eKcient Po"ell 4 Di?a$$io 15:C/ 17* The

most important $oal here is not eKciency but legitimacof the or$anisations*

They stress the actor)s belief that le$itimacy stems from conformin$ and

adaptin$ to the $eneral rules and norms isomorphism*

&nstitutional isomorphism thus loo#s at or$anisations competin$ for

institutional le$itimacy* 8ot only ne"ly emer$in$ or$anisations! but also

e,istin$ institutions can sho" si$ns of isomorphism* @hen implementin$

institutional reforms! rational actors in these institutions modify their features

in order to resemble the institutions in their %or$anisational -eld) this

enhances their le$itimacy* Le$itimacy depends on its conformity "ith $eneral

rules and standards of the or$anisational -eld* This is "hy it seems rational to

conform to this ima$e ?eyer 4 =o"an 15:C*

Processes of isomorphism can be "itnessed in the post+communist transition

of (entral and Bastern Burope* The $radual demise of the So'iet institutions

created a certain 'oid that called for institutional reinterpretation and

rede-nition* The 8e"ly &ndependent States had to decide on "hich further

path of de'elopment to embar#! ho" e,actly to pull throu$h the necessary

economic and political reforms! based on "hich 'alues! and "hich state

system* Loo#in$ Bast and @est for inspiration for reforms is inherent to the

transition process! especially on the le'el of forei$n policy* &somorphic

tendencies are le$ion! e*$* the future enlar$ement of the Buropean ;nion!

"hich encompassed the reuired adaptation of the candidate member states)

institutions and political structures to the Buropean ;nion)s ac5uis

communautaire! (&S inte$ration inspired by models of Buropean inte$ration

?alGiet 2002! etc*

&t is the aim of my research to analyse the process of institutional chan$e in

the Sla'ic (ore of the (&S from the theoretical perspecti'e of institutional

isomorphism* ?ore speci-cally! & see# to analyse ho" isomorphism surfaces

throu$h di.erent sta$es in the institutions of the three selected countries*

(onseuently! the issue of $eopolitical pluralism in the Sla'ic (ore of the (&S"ill be confronted by e,plorin$ and elaboratin$ the causal mechanisms of

isomorphism*

& "ill focus on one speci-c aspect that reGects institutional isomorphism in the

post+So'iet area! namely the oreign policof the selected countries 'is+M+'is

the B; and (&S or$anisational -elds* First of all because by focusin$ on one

6


7/22

particular policy area! & "ant to a'oid a too $eneral assessment of the

processes of chan$e and institutional dynamics* Secondly! & thin# that

isomorphic tendencies of a country mi$ht be reGected most clearly in its

forei$n policy! because the institutions in'ol'ed in the ma#in$ of forei$n policy

are in constant interaction "ith correspondin$ institutions in other countries*

Thirdly! because & thin# that the lin# bet"een institutional chan$e and forei$n

policy mi$ht tell us somethin$ more about the functionin$! the causes and the

e.ects of $eopolitical pluralism in the Sla'ic core of the (ommon"ealth of

&ndependent States* & "ill therefore concentrate on the institutions in these

countries that all deal to a $reater or lesser e,tent "ith forei$n policy/ the

Presidential Administration de-nin$ function! the ?inistry of Forei$n A.airs

e,ecuti'e function! and the Parliament reGecti'e function*

&n the analytical model that & de'eloped! & distin$uish bet"een t"o important

and distinct sta$es describe institutional isomorphism* Sta$e one comprisesthe institutional defnitionto"ards an or$anisational -eld as a result of the

acti'ities of a di'erse set of or$anisations* The homogenisation of these

or$anisations and of ne" entrants once the -eld is established ma#es up the

second sta$e Po"ell 4 Di?a$$io 15:C/ 1:*

1*1* Sta$e ne/ Structuration and &nstitutional De-nition to"ards

r$anisational Fields

A -rst crucial step in analysin$ the processes of institutional chan$e is

therefore to e,amine the structuration and institutional defnition of the

or$anisational -elds iddens 1575! 15:6* >y this & mean -rst of all assessin$

the emer$ence and de'elopment of the or$anisational -eld and secondly its

relation "ith the countries in its periphery in this case! =ussia! ;#raine!

>elarus*

Se'eral dimensions epitomise the structuration of an or$anisational -eld* Apart

from the collective defnitionof the -eld! another important dimension is the

emergence o a centre6peripher structure7

* &nstitutions in the periphery of an6 iddens describes structuration as a %continual and necessary reproduction of social structure by%#no"led$eable a$ents) in e'eryday life and the reciprocal inde,in$ of their actions to shared typi-cationiddens 15:/! in Po"ell4Di?a$$io 1551/ 22 @alter Po"ell obser'es that %institutions pro'ide shapeto the moral de-nitions of the purposes and re$ulations of recurrent social life! "hich is accordin$ to Po"ellone of the #ey points of iddens) structuration theory Po"ell 1551/ 152*7&n a 1551 article! Di?a$$io enumerates dimensions of structuration increase in the density of inter+or$anisational contacts! increases in the Go" of information! emer$ence of a centre+periphery structure!and the collecti'e de-nition of a -eld* These correspond "ith the or$anisational characteristics mentionedin the Po"ell4Di?a$$io chapter of the same year* Barlier in a 15:C article Di?a$$io elaborated -'eelements of structuration "hich correspond "ith Po"ell4Di?a$$io)s or$anisational characteristics*

7


8/22

or$anisational -eld are more freuently e,posed to di.erent outside inGuences

than institutions that are in the 'ery centre of an established or$anisational

-eld* Therefore! these institutions ha'e more often been the sub9ect of

institutional chan$e! resultin$ in less uniform institutions "ith more di'ersity in

their features and their institutional composition* ?oreo'er! because they are

in the periphery of the or$anisational -eld! these institutions often display

more national speci-cities than institutions in the centre of the -eld*

&n order to ma#e an e,hausti'e assessment of the centre+periphery relations

bet"een ;#raine! =ussia and >elarus on the one hand and the B; and (&S

or$anisational -eld on the other hand! one needs to loo# into t"o sta$es* First

of all! one needs to -rst assess ho" peripheral institutions ha'e reacted to

outside inGuences and sudden! profound chan$e* Secondly! one needs to study

ho" e,actly the institutional defnitionof peripheral institutions to"ards central

institutions occurs*

The -rst sta$e can be adeuately assessed by a concise o'er'ie" of the

recent e'ents in the selected countries that mi$ht ha'e tri$$ered institutional

chan$e! most importantly the implosion of the So'iet ;nion* &n the second

sta$e! the speci-c initiati'es of institutional de-nition in =ussia! ;#raine and

>elarus si$nallin$ rapprochement "ith the B; or (&S must be determined*

&nstitutional de-nition "ill initially be e,amined by literature re'ie" of rele'ant

primary and secondary sources/ the analysis of oKcial documents that re'eal

the forei$n policy strate$ies to"ards the or$anisational -elds* (onseuently!

the institutional de-nition "ill also be determined throu$h empirical

in'esti$ation* This analysis departs from four basic %or$anisational

characteristics)* These characteristics contribute to deepenin$ the

interrelations bet"een the di.erent parts of the or$anised "hole Nthe -eld!

resultin$ e'entually in isomorphism*

The four or$anisational characteristics are/

+2 increased interaction among organisations in the feld

+72 the emergence o sharpl defned interorganisational structures odominance and coalition

+12 an increase in inormation load with which institutions and organisations in

the feld must contend

8


9/22

+82 the development o a mutual awareness among participants in a set o

organisations that the are involved in a common enterprise

+Powell , 9i:aggio ;10 8;2

The empirical assessment of institutional de-nition by means of the four

or$anisational characteristics permits a comprehensi'e analysis! since these

four or$anisational characteristics co'er the dimensions of the or$anisational

-eld that are most important for this study not only the di.erent aspects of

centre6peripher relations increased interaction! increase of information

load! but also the collective defnition as a feldmutual a"areness of bein$

in'ol'ed in common enterprise! emer$ence of inter+or$anisational structures

of dominance and coalition* Therefore! this -rst sta$e "ill ma#e an adeuate

initial assessment of the topics under study/ the or$anisational -elds and the

institutions in the peripheral countries =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus! andtheir institutional de-nition to"ards the -elds! "hich is! accordin$ to Po"ell

and Di?a$$io a -rst step to"ards institutional isomorphism*

4ig. Structuration and Institutional 9efnition o the Organisational 4ield

STAGEONE

STRUCTURATION5 INSTITUTIONALDEFINITIONOFTHEORGANISATIONALFIELD

1.

Co!!e&i)e de6#i&io# of

o*$"#i%"&io#"! 6e!d

+ clear delineation of or$anisational -eld+ description of structuration process

(.

E+e*$e#e of e#&*e7e*ihe*-

%&*'&'*e

+ institutional de-nition of peripheralinstitutions to"ards an or$anisational

-eld

In sum! the -rst sta$e of this research comprises studyin$ the structuration of

and institutional de-nition to"ards the or$anisational -eld* The structuration

of an or$anisational -eld is assessed by a clear delineation of the -eld and

its boundaries and of the structuration process* ne dimension of the

structuration process! the centre+periphery relation! is particularly rele'ant as

it is the main focus of the study* &n order to e,plain the interaction bet"een

9


10/22

centre and periphery! & "ill also loo# into ho" peripheral institutions ha'e

reacted to outside inGuences and sudden chan$e! and concentrate on ho"

these institutions de-ne themsel'es to"ards the or$anisational -eld

institutional de-nition*

1*2* Sta$e T"o/ &nstitutional &somorphism

The second phase of my analytical model focuses on the increasin$

homo$enisation of institutions in the centre and periphery of an or$anisational

-eld* The concept that best captures this process of homo$enisation is

isomorphismPo"ell4Di?a$$io 15:C/15* This term is de-ned as %a process

that leads one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same

set of en'ironmental conditions) a"ley 156:! td in Po"ell4 Di?a$$io 15:C!

and is employed to enhance institutional le$itimacy*

This second sta$e of my research "ill therefore -rst of all consist of a thorou$h

evaluationof institutional chan$e and redesi$nin$ of the countries) selected

institutions since 1551* The e'aluation "ill enable us to identify these

countries) forei$n policy priorities! and to analyse their institutional de-nition

to"ard the or$anisational -eld* The obser'able di'er$ence in the countries)

policy choices "ill lead us to the issue of geopolitical pluralism$ "hich "ill

co'er a second part of the isomorphic sta$e* ?ore speci-cally! t"o issues "ill

reuire substantial reGection here origins and patterns o institutional change

in =ussia! >elarus and ;#raine! and the sources o variation in institutional

changethat lead to $eopolitical pluralism in the Post+So'iet area:*

4ig. 7 Stage 70 Institutional Isomorphism

STAGETWO: INSTITUTIONALISOMORPHISM

e)"!'"&io# of i#%&i&'&io#"! h"#$e "#d i#%&i&'&io#"! *ede%i$#i#$

8 &n his 1551 essay %B,pandin$ the Scope of &nstitutional Analysis) Po"ell 4 Di?a$$io 1551/ 1:C+20C!@alter Po"ell ac#no"led$ed some shortcomin$s of isomorphist theory! @alter Po"ell pointed out se'eralareas in need of impro'ement! the most important one bein$ the need or an enhanced understanding oboth the processes that generate institutional change ando the sources o heterogeneit in institutionalenvironments.

10


11/22

o*i$i#% 5 "&&e*#% of i#%&i&'&io#"!

h"#$e

%o'*e% of )"*i"&io# i#

i#%&i&'&io#"! h"#$e

a. Origins and Patterns o Institutional Change

ri$inally! isomorphic theory sa" the underlyin$ reasons for institutional

chan$e anchored in three causal mechanisms/ coerci'e! mimetic! and

normati'e isomorphism* Althou$h certain traits of these causal mechanisms

certainly apply to the institutional chan$e in =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus! it is a

too narro" model that mi$ht fail to fully address the many aspects and

incenti'es of institutional processes of post+communist transition in the Sla'ic

(ore*Therefore! to identify the causal mechanisms that e,plain institutional chan$e!

& opted to depart from si, factors/ coercive! mimeticand normativeisomorphic

processes! unsuccessul imitation$ incomplete institutionalisation! and the

recomposition o organisational felds* These causal mechanisms are

e,tensi'ely described in the -rst chapter of my PhD* For this seminar paper! &

"ill limit myself to the follo"in$ table that depicts the connotation of the

di.erent causal mechanisms*

4ig. 1 Causal mechanisms o isomorphism and hpothetical applications

Coercive Isomorphism - Pressures! dependence! culturale,pectations

:imetic Isomorphism - uncertainty ! imitation- modellin$ institutions after or$anisations

percei'ed as more successful


12/22

chan$es

#ecomposition o Organisational4ields

- institutional chan$e "hen boundaries ofor$anisational -eld chan$e due to a*o*$eopolitical reshuOin$

b. Sources o Variation / Heterogeneit in Institutional Change

This section "ill o.er some insi$ht on ho" my dissertation intends to e,plain

the sources of hetero$eneity in the three cases) institutional chan$e that

e'entually leads to $eopolitical pluralism*

The reason for this hetero$eneity lies partly in the fact that the creation!

de'elopment and chan$e of institutions are all history+dependent processesPo"ell 1551/ 15I* &nstitutions emer$e at di.erent times and under speci-c

circumstances* Also! certain practices "ithin institutions "ill be perpetuated

because of persistin$ assumptions and comple, interdependencies* All of this

points to path dependent patterns of de'elopment! in "hich initial choices

preclude future options* &n order to come to a better understandin$ of the

factors that promote hetero$eneity! "e therefore need to reco$nise the

comple,ity of institutional en'ironments and trace the sources of di'er$ence

by e,plorin$ these path dependent processes! "hich occur both at the le'el

of institutions and the collecti'e le'el of the or$anisational -eld Po"ell 1551/

151+152*

Path dependence captures the "hole underlyin$ idea of institutions de'elopin$

at di.erent times and 'aryin$ speeds* &nstitutions are seen as relati'ely

persistent features of the historical landscape and one of the central factors

pushin$ historical de'elopment alon$ a set of %paths)* @hen a $o'ernment

institution or or$anisation embar#s upon a path! it is diKcult to stray from the

chosen path of this institution! because of the institution)s propensity to persist

in the chosen course of policies* all 4 Taylor 1556/ 5C5


13/22

RESEARCHDESIGNANDMETHODOLOG,

1. Co+"*"&i)e A#"!-%i% of I#%&i&'&io#%

&n the -eld of post+So'ietolo$y! relati'ely fe" researchers ha'e focused on

the comparative analysis of ormal state institutions5* n comparin$

le$islatures for e,ample! Joel stro" remar#s that %most "or#s in the -eld of

comparati'e le$islati'e studies either de'elop descripti'e tpologies of

le$islatures based on their characteristics and functions or elaborate single

casestudies* Little e.ort has been made to de'elop and apply criteria for

e,plainin$ le$islati'e beha'iour or "hy some perform better than others*)

stro" 2000/ 20* & endorse his claim that %a comparati'e institutionalist

approach o.ers much potential for the broader sub-eld of comparati'e

politics* &t embraces a bottom+up approach to theory+buildin$ that * is a

refreshin$ departure from attempts at $rand+theory and all of the

accompanyin$ limitations demonstrated by past and recent %modernisation)

to %transitions to democracy) approaches) stro" 2000/ 21*

Ta#in$ comparati'e analysis as its basic methodolo$ical premise! this study

endorses Den3in)s multiple trian$ulation10 approach* >oth theoretical and

methodolo$ical trian$ulation "ill be applied theoretical trian$ulation by

approachin$ the research "ith di'erse perspecti'es and hypotheses in mind!

and methodolo$ical trian$ulation by usin$ t"o or more methods e*$* sur'eyand discourse analysis to measure the same phenomenon "ill be applied*

(. A Co+"*"&i)e A#"!-&i"! /Re%e"*h C-!e0

Theda S#ocpol and ?ar$aret Somers 15:0 lin# comparati'e politics to the

path dependence approach by identifyin$ three distinct lo$ics of comparati'e

history that form a research ccle/ 1 parallel demonstration of theory! 2

contrast of conte,ts! C macro+causal analysis*

9@hereas informal institutions do $et uite some attention in the comparati'e analysis of the post+So'iet

space! especially from authors "ho focus on informal net"or#s! lobbyin$ $roups! etc ** in these countries!or "ho statistically compare the importance that citi3ens of di.erent countries attach to informalinstitutions*10btainin$ data from a "ide ran$e of di.erent sources! usin$ a 'ariety of methods! in'esti$ators ortheories its main purposes bein$ con-rmation of certain hypotheses and achie'in$ $reater completenessin the study

13


14/22

Theparallel demonstration o theorloo#s for similarities amon$ the cases in

terms of common applicability of the theoretical ar$uments S#ocpol 4

Somers 15:0/ 176*

The contrast o conte=tsapproach reasons the other "ay round* &t hi$hli$hts

the uniue features of each case and aims to demonstrate ho" the

particularities of each case a.ect social processes*:acro6causal analsisalso called multi'ariate hypothesis+testin$ is the third

approach su$$ested by S#ocpol and Somers and unli#e the contrast oriented

comparati'ists! macro+analysts do aspire to %test the 'alidity of e,istin$

theories and to de'elop ne" causal $eneralisations to replace in'alidated

ones) S#ocpol 4 Somers 15:0/ 1:2 throu$h comparati'e analysis* Di.erent

academic "or#s ha'e sometimes combined these approaches this study "ill

accordin$ly reGect features of the three distinct lo$ics*

Parallel comparative histor

:acro6causal Contrast o>nalsis Conte=ts

4ig. 8. 3he triangle o comparative histor as a complementar sstem +S&ocpol ,

Somers ;?0 ;;2

The comparati'e analysis "ill ta#e place throu$h the "ell+#no"n ?ost Similar

Systems Desi$n ?SSD as put for"ard by Pr3e"ors#i and Teune 1570! "ho

describe it as/

!@ based on a belie that a number o theoreticall signifcant diAerences will

be ound among similar sstems and these diAerences can be used in

e=planation. 3he alternative design B:9S9$ which see&s ma=imal

heterogeneit in the sample o sstems$ is based on a belie in intersstemic

14


15/22

diAerentiation$ the Bcases will diAer with regard to onl a limited number o

variables or relationships( +PrDewors&i , 3eune E?0 12

&n ?SSD! the comparison bet"een relati'ely similar countries allo"s to

neutralise certain di.erences in order to permit a better analysis of other

di.erences12* The countries of the Sla'ic (ore of the (&S ha'e manysimilarities! not only on $o'ernmental or or$anisational le'el as mentioned

earlier! ;#raine! =ussia and >elarus also hold numerous historical and cultural

parallels* The comparable bac#$round of these countries allo"s us to focus

on one speci-c aspect! i*e* institutional chan$e resultin$ in disparate forei$n

policy orientations*

. I#%&i&'&io#"! h"#$e "#d Fo*ei$# Po!i-: The O*$"#i%"&io#"!

P*oe%% Mode!

&n order to pro'ide an adeuate conte,t for comparin$ the interaction

bet"een institutional chan$e and forei$n policy in =ussia! ;#raine and

>elarus! sta$e one of this study lin#s up "ith raham Allison)s r$anisational

Process ?odel* ne of the most prominent scholars on forei$n policy! he

de'eloped an inno'ati'e perspecti'e on forei$n policy that does not primarily

focus on decision ma#ers! but percei'es the institutions and bureaucracies

behind these decision ma#ers as playin$ a crucial role in forei$n policy!

thereby treadin$ the common $round bet"een &= and political science*

pposin$ the beha'iouralist 'ie" of forei$n policy bein$ determined by

actors as rational decision ma#ers "hich he brands the (lassical =ationalActor ?odel! raham Allison proposed t"o ne" models in his 1571 boo#1C/

the r$anisational Process ?odel and the >ureaucratic Politics ?odel* >oth

models Q often mentioned under the common denominator of the

%bureaucratic politics account) as opposed to the rational actor model +

o.ered %a "ay of e,plainin$ FP decision+ma#in$ that is distinctly di.erent

from the %rational+actor) account of the process) Smith 1552/ 105*

o'ernments consist of di.erent or$anisations institutions %amon$ "hich

primary responsibility for particular tas#s is di'ided)1amon$ or$anisations in

order to respond to a "ide spectrum of policy issues* Fe" important issues

ho"e'er fall e,clusi'ely "ithin the domain of a sin$le or$anisation! especiallyon the le'el of forei$n policy* The %multiple facets of forei$n a.airs reuires

11See also Landman 2000!


16/22

that problems be cut up and parcelled out to 'arious or$anisations) Q li#e e*$*

the ?FA! parliament and Presidential Administration* Allison 1571/67! :0

(lar#e 1552/ I1*

raham Allison $oes as far to state that %a $o'ernment consists of a

con$lomerate of semi+feudal! loosely allied or$anisations! each "ith asubstantial life of its o"n) Allison 1571/ 67* The speci-city of each

or$anisation that contributes to a $reater or lesser e,tent to the de'elopment

of forei$n policy priorities and directi'es mi$ht therefore imply some

obstacles alon$ the road to a coherent forei$n policy position* ne of the

stron$ points of the or$anisational process model is its particular mindfulness

for and sensiti'ity to"ards the speci-c internal aspects of these loosely allied

domestic or$anisations that determine forei$n policy* >y not only payin$

attention to the formal standard operatin$ procedures on the hi$hest le'el!

but also by bein$ attenti'e to the comple, interplay bet"een these

institutions on the domestic le'el! this approach may help to unco'er thecomple, machineries of the state and its di.erent institutions that result in

forei$n policy actions1I*

The or$anisational process model is more than -ttin$ to study processes of

isomorphism in =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus* &ts perspecti'e $enerally

corresponds "ith the basic characteristics of isomorphism! and can therefore

ser'e as a comprehensi'e conte,t enablin$ us to carry out a comparati'e

study of forei$n policy on the le'el of institutions.@ith such methodolo$ical

perspecti'e of forei$n policy analysis that is distinctly tailored to the

speci-cities of the research topic most importantly! studyin$ forei$n policyon the le'el of institutions instead of focusin$ on a fe" decision+ma#ers! this

approach is bound to $i'e us 'ery useful and inno'ati'e insi$hts about the

interaction bet"een the forei$n policy of =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus and

isomorphic chan$e*

2. Choie of Co'#&*ie%

The rationale behind the selection of =ussia! >elarus and ;#raine as countries

for comparison is threefold* First of all! these three countries constitute aparticular re$ion that is crucial in the contemporar )uropean geopolitical

landscape* f the (&S re$ion! these three countries matter the most for the

enlar$ed Buropean ;nion* ;#raine and >elarus matter because since ?ay

200! they share a common border "ith the Buropean ;nion and ha'e to co+

1I(lar#e moreo'er remar#s here that in analysin$ forei$n policy beha'iour from the or$anisational process

perspecti'e! %"e need to loo# at the subtler mi,ture of roles and moti'es that may a.ect uite lo"+le'eldecision+ma#ers Q oKcials "ho on formal assumptions "ould be re$arded as merely %implementers) (lar#e1552/ I1*

16


17/22

operate as ne" nei$hbours on a*o* border issues* =ussia matters because of

its dominant inGuence in the post+So'iet area! for security as "ell as for

ener$y considerations* Althou$h their pro,imity to the or$anisational -eld of

the Buropean ;nion determines the three countries) forei$n policy! their

membership of the less de'eloped but therefore not less si$ni-cant

or$anisation of the (&S should not be i$nored* Althou$h not amountin$ to theor$anisational le'el of the Buropean ;nion! this much youn$er Bastern

Buropean construction that hopes to mirror the B; structures in the future

does function as an or$anisational -eld ?alGiet 2002! =ontoyanni 2000!

Stefes 200C* The forei$n policy of the three countries is therefore also

determined by this or$anisational -eld*

Secondly! the fact that these three countries constitute the Slavic core o the

CIS connotes correlation and analo$y* istorical! political! and cultural

similarities bet"een the three countries are manifold* The aKnities bet"een

=ussia! ;#raine and >elarus allo" us moreo'er to apply ?SSD and sin$le outthe di.erences to be studied from these predominantly similar bac#$rounds

This leads us to the third and most important rationale for choosin$ these

three states/ the di.erences in their forei$n policy orientation* @hen ta#in$ a

-rst loo# at the Sla'ic (ore! one does not immediately encounter any clear

indicators that can e,plain discrepancies in forei$n policies* o"e'er! close

scrutiny of the particular conte,t in "hich the institutional desi$n and

formation too# place! as "ell as puncture points that tri$$ered institutional

chan$e durin$ the transition period! unco'er a di.erent picture that is of

interest to this study*

3. Choie of I#%&i&'&io#%

&n order to study the inGuence of transitional chan$e on political institutions

and its impact on state performance Lane 4 Brsson 155/ 172 and policy

outcomes! the institutions in "hich these processes ta#e place should be

selected carefully and meticulously* Process and institution studies! as

described by uy Peters! rather concentrate on the de'elopment of lo"er+

le'el comparisons of a particular institution or process! than on thecomparison of complete political systems Peters! 155:/ 10* &nstitutions

included in the analysis are the Presidential Administration! the ?inistry of

Forei$n A.airs! and the Parliament in the three respecti'e countries*

&n all three countries! the Presidential >dministrationplays a crucial role in

forei$n policy orientation! "ith its oKcials acti'ely in'ol'ed in discussin$ and

17


18/22

draftin$ policy+oriented proposals on both or$anisational -elds of the (&S and

the Buropean ;nion designingforei$n policy*

>ecause of their deep in'ol'ement in the practicalities and implementationof

forei$n policy directi'es! the :inistr o 4oreign >Aairs has the most

e,tensi'e and comprehensi'e or$anisational structure "ith speci-c di'isions

departament i upravlenia in the ministries dealin$ "ith the relations the(&S and the Buropean ;nion* This ma#es it particularly interestin$ to study

because of the acti'e co+operation and increasin$ information Go" bet"een

the ?FA and the t"o or$anisational -elds*

Despite bein$ reassessed durin$ the post+communist transition! parliaments

still ha'e a limited impact on domestic and forei$n policy! that doesn)t match

the inGuence of the Security (ouncil or the ?inistry of Forei$n A.airs A$h

155! (lar# 1555! lson 1555! =emin$ton 2001* 8e'ertheless! formal

committees &omitet and informal $roupin$s "ithin this institution reGect

upon the policy to"ards both or$anisational -elds16* Apart from their

reFectivefunction! the important role of the committee system in the So'ietpast is a note"orthy fact for our path dependent approach stro" 2000/ :+

517*

4. Me&hod% "#d D"&" Co!!e&io#

After an initial comparati'e analysis of institutional creation and desi$n in

=ussia! ;#raine and >elarus to identify possible determinants for institutional

de'elopment or the lac# of it! & turn to isomorphism for studyin$

institutional chan$e in the Sla'ic core of the (&S*

A -rst 'enture into testin$ the theory ta#es place in sta$e one throu$h the

analysis of institutional de-nition of the three countries) to"ards the

or$anisational -elds* >y 'erifyin$ "hether the four or$anisational

characteristics mentioned earlier are present in the or$anisational structures

of the three countries! isomorphic tendencies can be detected*

&n the second phase! the process of isomorphism in the selected institutions

"ill be studied* &n order to test and identify the presence and type of

isomorphism in the countries) institutions! & "ill depart from a ran$e of

hypotheses su$$ested by Po"ell and Di?a$$io Po"ell 4 Di?a$$io 15:C/1I0+1I2* Throu$h test inter'ie"s! the hypotheses "ill be re-ned and

additional speci-cations made "here necessary* >y doin$ this! other

indicators of isomorphism "ill also surface*

16Li#e the parliamentary committee for (&S a.airs in the =ussian State Duma! the committee for Buropean

&nte$ration in the ;#rainian =ada! pro+Buropean fractions in the parliaments li#e the %Buropean (lub) in theDuma and Vladimir =y3h#o')s %=ussia in a ;nited Burope) $roup*17

?oreo'er! an institution that has had such a turbulent start in the ne"ly independent states should notbe o'erloo#ed arasymi" 2000! lson 2002*

18


19/22


20/22

de'elopment of apolitical dialo$ue)

osudarst'+ A$reement on the(reation of a ;nionState =ussia Q>elarus;nion documents

deyatelnosti)+ The Forei$n Policy of>elarus/ A Tradition ofPra$matic oodnei$hbourliness

As a third part of trian$ulation the electronic sur'ey and the study of policy

documents "ill be complemented "ith the analysis of the pre'alent discourse

in the selected institutions and $roupin$s! based on primary sources e*$*

parliamentary debates and committee proceedin$s concernin$ e,ternal

a.airs more speci-cally Burope and the (&S*

20


21/22

Conclusion

&n sum! this paper outlined the theoretical and methodolo$ical frame"or# of

my doctoral research* The follo"in$ research uestions "ere formulated at

the outset of this paper/

!"hich mechanisms within the political institutions o #ussia$ %&raine and

'elarus generate !isomorphism( toward the )uropean %nion and the

Commonwealth o Independent States$ and what is the rationale behind the

divergent oreign polic orientations in the Slavic Core o the CISH)

Lo$ically! speci-c uestions deri'e from these core uestions! for e,ample!

ho" does =ussia)s leadin$ role in the (&S translate itself in to the structure of

the selected institutionsH o" does ;#raine combine its %Buropean choice)

"ith its membership in se'eral subre$ional initiati'es in the frame"or# of the

(&SH The comparison bet"een the institutions in ;#raine and >elarus! couldre'eal an interestin$ contrast bet"een the t"o countries*

>y as#in$ these uestions! & see# to e,plain the moti'ations behind the

$eopolitical pluralism that currently mar#s the post+So'iet area by analysin$

it throu$h the theory of institutional isomorphism* The t"o sta$es of

isomorphist theory chan$e ser'e as the main structure throu$h "hich the

processes of institutional isomorphic chan$e can be scrutinised* >y -rst

studyin$ the institutional de-nition of =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus to"ards

the B; and (&S or$anisational -elds! the $eopolitical structures on the

Burasian continent can be mapped* The second sta$e "ill in'esti$ate ori$insand patterns of institutional chan$e and sources of hetero$eneity in

isomorphic chan$e* This can clarify the cultural and $eo$raphical di'isions

bet"een =ussia! ;#raine and >elarus and more in $eneral bet"een the t"o

or$anisational -elds B; and (&S*

The Sla'ic (ore of the (&S as a ?SSD lends itself to applyin$ se'eral lo$ics of

S#ocpol 4 Somers) research cycle* Bndorsin$ methodolo$ical trian$ulation!

this dissertation comprises a comparati'e analysis performed throu$h the

study of oKcial documents and a$reements! discourse analysis! some

inter'ie"s and an electronic sur'ey based on elaborated hypothesessu$$ested by Po"ell and Di?a$$io*

The main ad'anta$e of the theory of isomorphism is t"ofold* First of all! it

o.ers a mechanism for e,aminin$ ho" not only political! but also historical

and cultural determinants can inGuence the political or$anisation and forei$n

policy orientation of a state* &n doin$ this! it underscores the importance of

21


22/22

historical and cultural factors! often ne$lected in the research of democratic

transitions*

A second ad'anta$e is the theory)s "ide applicability and its openness

to"ards other disciplines* &t enables us to o'ercome the usual di'ide bet"een

comparati'e politics and area studies and to combine these approaches in a

complementary "ay! thus contributin$ to the main aim of this doctoralresearch/ an e,hausti'e and inno'ati'e analysis of processes of institutional

chan$e in the post+communist transition*

Documents

2de Docsem Paper