SOCIAL POLICY: ISSUES OF THE MODERN CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONALISM

Abstract

The article is devoted to the systematization of modern theoretical views on the role of institutions in social development. The relevance of the topic is determined by the need for a thorough analysis of modern views on the role and place of institutions in social development in the conceptualization of diff erent approaches to the development of institutional theory. The novelty of the work lies in the substantiation of the directions of use in domestic science and practice of modern approaches to institutionalism in general and various institutions in particular in order to improve the economic and social development of the country, its regions and communities. The purpose of the article is to summarize the main latest theoretical views on institutional theory and the practical use of its components in the formation of state development policy in various spheres of public life. Іn the process of preparing the article, such basic research methods as systematic and multidisciplinary, as well as comparative analysis were used, the joint application of which allowed to fully explore and generalize the multifaceted and complex nature of the components of institutional theory and its use. Scientifi c approaches to key components of institutional theory are considered. The main characteristics of the concept of institutions as a common phenomenon in the social, political and economic spheres are highlighted. Emphasis is placed on the coordinating role of institutions, the importance of studying the impact on public policy-making of both formal and informal institutions. The approach to the analysis of institutions from the point of view of rational and sociological behavioral models is systematized. Various scientifi c interpretations of institutional theory on an interdisciplinary basis — from the point of view of organizational institutionalism, institutional economics and comparative institutionalism — are characterized and analyzed. The author identifi ed provisions of these theoretical approaches, which seem relevant and are of greatest interest to scientists, politicians, practitioners in the framework of institutional analysis. In particular, the importance of socially responsible investment in the development of person, separate territory, country as a whole, as interconnected and interdependent processes that characterize the development of self-regulation of the business environment as a form of informal institutions. It is found that from the point of view of formation and implementation of public policy by authorities of diff erent territorial levels, it is important to use the ideas of comparative institutionalism, in particular on the mutual conditionality and interdependence of institutions in diff erent spheres of public life. The generalization of research on the implementation by countries of various institutional forms for the improvement of development policy is out, on the basis of which the importance of complementarity of institutions, dialectically interconnected, is determined. In this context, the key functions of institutions that are critical for the formation and implementation of development policy are described. The introduction of such an approach to evaluating the eff ectiveness of institutions as “institutional distance” is analyzed.

References:

1. Sabluk, P. (2011). Instytutsiini zasady transformatsii v ahrarnii sferi: dop. na 13-kh richnykh zborakh Vseukr. konhresu vchenykh ekonomistiv-ahrarnykiv. [Institutional principles of transformations in the agrarian sphere: ext. At the 13th annual meeteng of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Agricultural Economists]. (June 20-21). Kyiv: NSC “Institute of Agrarian Economics” [in Ukrainian].
2. Lozynska, T. M. (2014). Do problemy vzhyvannia terminiv “instytut” i “instytutsiia” v konteksti instytutsionalnoho analizu [To the problem of using the terms “institute” and “institution” in the context of institutional analysis]. Business Inform - Business Inform, 7, 8-13 [in Ukrainian].
3. Obushna, N. I. (2016). Osoblyvosti katehorialnoho aparatu instytutsionalnoi teorii u ploshchyni derzhavnoho upravlinnia. [Features of the categorical apparatus of institutional theory in the fi eld of public administration]. DonSUU. MANAGER, 1 (70), 40-48 [in Ukrainian]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
4. North Douglass, C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
5. Williamson, Ó. (2000). Th e New Institutional conomics: Take Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, (February 2000), 595-613. doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595
6. Barzel, Y. A. (2002). Th eory of the state. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Cambridge; Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Econ Issues, 40 (1), 10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879
7. Dam, K. W. (2006). Th e law growth nexus: the rule of law and economic development. Brookings Institution Press. Washington. 8 . Faundez, J. (2016). Douglass North’s Th eory of Institutions: Lessons for Law and Development. University of Warwick, Coventry. UK. Hague J Rule Law, 8, 373-419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0028-8
8. Williamson, O. (1998). Th e Institution of Governance. American Economic Review, 88(2),75-79. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4726247
9. Pavan, A., Reginato, E., & Landis, C. (2017). Institutional Governance. Springer Intern at ional Publishing AG 2018. A. Farazmand (Ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Adm in is tration, Public Policy and Governance. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2032-1
10. Arrow, K. J. (1974). Th e Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.
11. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Th e Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
12. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R. & Duineveld, M. (2015). An overview of EGT’s main concepts. Evolutionary Governance Th eory : Th eory and Applications. Springer International Publishing: Swizerland. Heidelberg. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12274-8_2
13. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”. Th e Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions.
14. Оstrom, Е., & Walker, J. (1991). Сommunication in a commons: cooperation without external enforcement. Тhomas R. Palfrey (Ed.). Laboratory Research in Political Economy, Аnn Аrbor: University of Michigan Press.
15. Blatter, J. (2012). Forms of Political Governance: Th eoretical Foundations and Ideal Types. Working Paper Series „Glocal Governance and Democracy”. University of Lucerne. Lucerne. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3008518
16. Hotho, J. J., & Pedersen, T. (2012). Beyond the rule of the game; Th ree institutional approaches and how they matter for international business. G. Wood & M. Demirbag (Eds.). Handbook of institutional approaches to international business: 236-273. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
17. Scott, W. R. (1995/2001). Institutions and organizations, 2nd edn. Sage. Th ousand O aks.
18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). Th e iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizationalfi elds. Am Sociol Rev, 48, 147-160. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
19. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598
20. Davis, G. F., & Zald, M. N. (2005). Social change, social theory, and the convergence of movements and organizations. G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds). Social movement and organization theory. Cambridge University Press, New York. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791000.017
21. Governance, Agile (2018). Reimgining Policy-making in the Forth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. White Paper, January 2018, 17.
22. Hadfi eld, G. (2016). Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy. Oxford University Press.
23. Reid, M., & Yang, S. (2016). Organizational Institutionalism. Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA). Farazmand (Ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_91-1
24. Myrdal, G. (1978). Institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 12(4), 771-783. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1978.11503577
25. Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Th e revival of Veblenian institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 41(2), 325-340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2007.11507019
26. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Lane, C. & Wood, G. (2009). Capitalist diversity and diversity within capitalism. Economy and Society, 38(4), 531-551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140903190300
28. Harzing, A.-W. & Sorge, A. M. (2003). Th e relative impact of country of origin and universalcontingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multi-nationalenterprises: Worldwide and European perspectives. Organization Studies, 24(2), 187-214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024002343
29. Romaniuk, S. A. (2018). Detsentralizatsiia: teoriia ta praktyka zastosuvannia [Decentralization: theory and practice of application]. Kyiv: NAPA [in Ukrainian].
30. Jackson, G. & Deeg, R. (2008b). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversityand its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 540-561. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400375
31. Redding, G. (2005). Th e Th ick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 123-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400129
32. Lahat, L. (2020). New Institutionalism in Public Policy. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. A. Farazmand (Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5
33. Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: the new institutionalism in poli tical science. Macmillan international higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-32913-4_2
34. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud, J 39(1), 7-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
35. Immergut, E. M. (1998). Th e theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Polit Soc, 26(1), 5-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329298026001002
36. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2002). Positive and negative feedback in politics. Policy dynamics. University of Chicago Press. F. R. Baumgartner, B. D. Jones (Eds). Chicago.
37. Platteau, Jean-Philippe (2000). Institutions, Social Norms, and Economic Development. Fundamentals of Development Economics Series. London: Routledge.
38. Geoff rey, R. D. (2018). Markets, Institutions, and Transaction Costs: the Endogeneity of Governance. Annual Conference of the Society for Institutional and Organizational Economics. HEC-Montréal.
39. Governance for development: Th e challenges. World Development Report 2017 (2017). In: Governance and the Law. World Development Report. 2017. World Bank Group.
40. Khan, M. (2011). Governance and Growth: History, Ideology, and Methods of Proof. SOAS. University of London. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698561.003.0002
41. Banuri, S., & Keefer, Ph. (2016). Pro social motivation, eff ort and the call to public service. European Economic Review, 3 (C), 139-164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.10.011
42. Governance and the Law. World Development Report (2017). World Bank Group.
43. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: Th e Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
44. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. (2018b). Cultural distance and fi rm internationalization: A meta-analytical review and theoretical implications. Journal of Management, 44(1), 89-130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729027
45. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Sinha, J. (2005). Strategies that fi t emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 4-19.
46. Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308-324. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893938
47. Kostova, T., Beugelsdijk, S., Scott, W. R., Kunst, V. E., Chua, Ch., & van Essen, M. (2019). Th e construct of institutional distance through the lens of diff erent institutional perspectives: Review, analysis,and recommendations. Journal of International Business Studies, 51, 467-497. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00294-w
48. Svitovyi bank vyrishyv vidterminuvaty obchyslennia reitynhu Doing Business [Th e World Bank has decided to postpone the calculation of the Doing Business rating] (2020). www.рravda.com.ua Retrieved from https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2020/ 08/28/7264431/