Deinstitutionalization

Conceptual Overview

While much of the research on institutional theory has focused on processes of institutionalization and the associated increased consistency of structure and action that result, deinstitutionalization has begun to attract more attention as it is increasingly recognized to be equally central to institutional processes. In particular, the growing interest among researchers in the process of institutional change that has accompanied the development of neoinstitutional theory has led to a corresponding increase in interest in the sorts of processes and pressures that lead to the erosion of the legitimacy or the taken-for-grantedness that characterizes institutions. Institutional change is as much about the erosion of existing institutions as it is about the creation of new institutions, and the mechanisms underlying this process are a source of increasing interest.

In one of the earliest contributions to the discussion of deinstitutionalization, Oliver identified three major antecedents (or sources of pressure) that can lead to the erosion of institutionalized norms or practices: political, functional, and social. Political pressures result primarily from shifts in the pattern of interests and distributions of power that have supported and legitimated existing institutional arrangements. Such shifts may occur in response to a re-valuation of the [Page 375]instrumental value of the institution, environmental changes, or shifts in the distribution of power in the field favoring actors who are critical of existing arrangements. Any factor that compels organizations to question the legitimacy of a given practice can lead to this sort of deinstitutionalization.

Functional pressures for deinstitutionalization, the second form Oliver discussed, arise when perceived problems in performance levels appear or when rewards associated with institutionalized practices change. These pressures may be tied to intraorganizational changes that focus attention on more technical aspects of activity and therefore intrude on the nonefficiency aspects of an institution, or from broad environmental changes such as intensified competition for resources. In either case, the result is that actors begin to question the perceived performance level of the institution, which, if successful, can lead to its erosion over time.

Finally, institutional change and deinstitutionalization may also be influenced by the rising social pressures that are often associated with increased differentiation among members of the field (for instance, increasing workforce diversity), structural changes to organizations that reduce the coherence of beliefs and practices (a merger, for example), and changes in laws or social expectations that might hinder the continuation of a practice (for instance, implementing affirmative action). In this case, some change affects the coherence and agreement of the taken-for-granted assumptions of a group, leading the shared agreement upon which institutions depend to break down, which results in deinstitutionalization.

...