12 February 2007 Lien Verpoest - IIEB
Institutional Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the CIS
Lien Verpoest - 2nd PhD seminar12 February 2007
Goals doctoral seminar
• overview of chapters & contents
• account of fieldwork - pitfalls- useful insights- preliminary results
• feedback
Introduction: A Delineation of the Research
• General Background: Geopolitical situation in Slavic Core of CIS since 1991
• Geopolitical Pluralism
• my approach to theories and methods
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework
• New Institutionalism • key variables• institutional change sociological institutionalism institutional isomorphism (> org analysis)
- Stage One
Stage OneStructuration & Institutional Definition of the
Organisational Field
1.structuration of
organisational field- clear delineation of organisational field-description of
structuration process(ch3-4)
2.emergence of centre-periphery structure-institutional definition of
peripheral institutions towards an organisational
field (ch5)
- Stage Two:
Institutional Isomorphism (ch6,7)• Origins and Patterns of
Institutional Change• Sources of Variation /
Heterogeneity in Institutional Change
Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology
• Comparative ‘Research Cycle’ (Skocpol & Somers)
• Institutional Change and Foreign Policy Organizational Process Model (Graham Allison 1971)
• focus formal/informal institutions
• Introduction of the specific cases:
– Choice of Countries
– Choice of Institutions
• Methods and Data Collection
PART II Structuration and Institutional Definition (Stage one)
• Organisational Field as Analytical Construct
• Process of structuration of the Organisational Field
Chapter 3: Structuration of Organisational Fields
structuration – collective definition of the organisational field
common interestcentralisation of
resources
‘Europe’ as an Organisational Field
Structuration of the Organisational Field
Common Interest
EU & CoE as complementary organisations
1) common values
2) concrete steps, projects & institutional mechanisms post-1991
3) complementarity of interests
Centralisation of Resources
enhanced economic cooperation - increased institutionalisation
Bureaucratisation Following Centralisation bureaucratisation elaborate institutional structure
The CIS Organisational Field
The Structuration of the Organisational Field:
Common Values & Interests damage control? Military, economic & institutional structures intertwined common values > common history
Centralisation of Resources intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms amendments increased integration
Chapter 4 Processes of Institutional Change
in the Slavic Core of the CIS
• Countries
• Domestic institutional development post-independence
• concept of critical junctures (Pierson 2000)
• Ukraine: Constitution 1996 (intertwined with institutional reform)
• Belarus: referenda 1995 &1996
• Russia: 1995 & 1996 parliamentary & presidential elections (institutional consolidation)
Chapter 5: Institutional Definition towards Organisational
Fields
1. Introduction domestic policy FP
2. External Relations after 1991
2.1. A Similar Start?
2.2. Critical Junctures and Foreign Policy: the mid-nineties
2.2.1. The Slavic Core in the mid-nineties: Differences and Similarities
critical junctures - ‘real’ FP orientations
initial assessment official documents & academic literature
2.2.2. Foreign policies compared
preliminary comparison FP orientations before analysing org characteristics
Stage OneStructuration & Institutional Definition of the Organisational Field
1.Collective definition of organisational
field- clear delineation of organisational field-description of structuration process
(ch3,4)
2.Emergence of centre-periphery structure-institutional definition of peripheral
institutions towards an organisational field -(ch5)
3. Institutional Definition towards the organisational fields
Testing organisational characteristics
3.1. increased interaction among organisations in the field 3.2. emergence of interorganisational structures of dominance
and coalition 3.3. increase in information load between organisations in the
field3.4. the development of a mutual awareness of being involved in
a common enterprise
fieldwork
Fieldwork: origins
• Triangulation
Official documents - academic literature - fieldwork
• exploratory interviews
- EU-Russia, EU-Ukraine & EU-Belarus Interparliamentary cooperation committee
- 2 aims
a) assessment cooperation committees b) testing org characteristics
- 2 insights
a) negative evaluationb) problems (Russia): enlargement, serious values gap
Fieldwork: Electronic Survey
Main objective survey:
- collecting data on institutions, foreign policy, & values perception- link institutional transformation & divergence between Eastern & Western
values perceptions?
Selection of respondents:
- academic communities, research institutes & think tanks in Russia, Belarus & Ukraine
- advantage : opinions from both centre and periphery of countries
wide range of respondents
completeness & validity
Fieldwork: Electronic Survey (2)
Design of the Survey
- 3 thematic groups: values, institutions, FP
- parallel (EVS, Eurobarometer)
- organisational characteristics = part 3 - types of questions
Language of the Survey
- state language &English - Russia: Ru, Eng- Ukraine: Ukr, Eng, Ru- Belarus: Bel, Ru, Eng
Fieldwork: Electronic Survey (3)
Survey sent
- Period June-Sept
- Reminder Oct-Nov
- 613 sent (746: 113 addresses didn’t work & 20 NR = 613)
- 129 responded
Problems
- collection mail addresses
- mail addresses that didn’t work
- Belarus: closed society
Positives
- enthusiastic reactions poignant issues
- Respondents from center & periphery geographical diversity
- Interesting results
Part 1: ValuesQuestion 1.3.
Do you ever think of yourself as a European?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Often 48,8 75,6
Sometimes 31,7 14,6
Rarely 14,6 9,8
Never 4,9 0,0
Russia Ukraine
Question 1.7.
What political system is most suitable for your country?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
Russia 20,7 35,4 2,4 41,5
Ukraine 7,3 65,9 0,0 26,8
Current systemWestern type democracy
Soviet system Other
Part 2: InstitutionsQuestion 2.2.
RUSSIA
How much confidence do you have in the following institutions?
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0
Parliament
President
Justice system
Presidential administration
Prime minister
Armed forces
Police
Press
CIS
Council of Europe
OSCE
EU
None at all
Not very much
Some
Quite a lot
Great deal
How much confidence do you have in the following institutions?
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0
Parliament
President
Justice system
Presidentialadministration
Prime minister
Armed forces
Police
Press
CIS
Council of Europe
OSCE
EU
None at all
Not very much
Some
Quite a lot
Great deal
UKRAINE
Question 2.3.
Russia
How influential do you consider these institutions in determining foreign policy?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,050,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
President Ministry ofForeign Affairs
Parliament Other
Very influential
Rather influential
A bit influential
Not really influential
Not influential at all
Ukraine
How influential do you consider these institutions in determining foreign policy?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
President Ministry ofForeign Affairs
Parliament Other
Very influential
Rather influential
A bit influential
Not really influential
Not influential at all
Question 2.6.
RUSSIA
UKRAINE
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
Institutional reforms havetaken place effectively over
the past 15 years
Institutional reforms shouldbe consistently based on thewestern democratic model
The institutional reforms ofthe last 15 years have
influenced governance inRussia
The market economies ofwestern European countriesshoud serve as an example
for domestic reforms
Agree strongly
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Disagree strongly
0,05,0
10,015,020,025,030,035,040,045,050,0
Institutional reforms havetaken place effectively over
the past 15 years
Institutinional reforms shouldbe consistently based on thewestern democratic model
The institutional reforms ofthe last 15 years have
influenced governance inUkraine
The market economies ofwestern European countriesshoud serve as an example
for domestic reforms
Agree strongly
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Disagree strongly
Part 3: Foreign Policy Question 3.3.
When do you think cooperation with ... was best?
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
In the early 90's 0,0 41,5
In the mid 90's 7,3 29,3
At the end of the 90's 9,8 19,5
Now 82,9 9,8
EU CIS
Russia
When do you think cooperation with ... was best?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
In the early 90's 13,4 28,0
In the mid 90's 19,5 23,2
At the end of the 90's 15,9 15,9
Now 51,2 32,9
EU CIS
Ukraine
Question 3.7.
How would you label relations with these organisations?
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
Common project
Tit-for-tat situation
Common project 7,3 8,5 3,7 3,7 7,3
11,0 9,8 6,1 7,3 13,418,3 22,0 17,1 12,2 22,026,8 26,8 31,7 26,8 23,217,1 13,4 19,5 15,9 17,114,6 14,6 15,9 20,7 12,2
Tit-for-tat situation 4,9 4,9 6,1 13,4 4,9
EU CISCouncil of
EuropeOSCE
Belarus-Russia Union
How would you label relations with these organisations?
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0Common project
Tit-for-tat situation
Common project 14,6 2,4 14,6 12,2 2,4
7,3 0,0 19,5 14,6 17,112,2 7,3 26,8 41,5 29,343,9 17,1 29,3 17,1 26,812,2 26,8 4,9 9,8 17,17,3 26,8 4,9 4,9 4,9
Tit-for-tat situation 2,4 19,5 0,0 0,0 0,0
EU CISCouncil of
EuropeOSCE GUUAM
Russia Ukraine
PART III - Institutional Isomorphism (Stage two)
Chapter 6 • Intertwined ch 5
• Explaining types of isomorphism based on data collected in part II
Chapter 7
• reasons behind institutional change causal mechanisms
• Explaining variations in institutional change
Path dependence: comparing historical processes
Creation of institutions & ‘critical junctures’
Conclusion