|
Unpacking Social Mechanisms
Comparing Social Constructivism and
Organization Theory Perspectives*
Jarle Trondal**
ARENA/Department of
Political Science, University of Oslo
Abstract
Whereas a constructivist turn has occurred in recent
international relations theory, a institutionalist turn
has occurred in organization theories of the 1980's and
1990's. Social constructivism and organization theory
exhibit important similarities as regards the basic
underlying social mechanisms paid heed to. Consequently,
one rationale for comparing these two strands of
arguments rests on the observation that (i) they address
the same dependent variables - i.e. decision behaviour,
identity formation and role conceptions, and (ii) that
some of the underlying mechanisms explaining these
variables are nearly identical. Regarding the dependent
variables, this article discusses the construction of
identities, role conceptions and decision behaviours
amongst central government officials. Moreover, the frame
of reference for the current discussion is government
officials from domestic central administrative
institutions participating within committees and working
groups within the European Union. This frame is chosen
because officials who participate in several polities
simultaneously are assumed to be challenged as regards
their identifications, role conceptions and modes of
acting.
Keywords: constructivism; organization theory;
identity; role conception; decision behaviour; EU
committees.
Introduction
Increasingly, organization theory perspectives are
attracting attention from scholars studying European
integration and processes of Europeanization of domestic
institutions and processes (e.g. Bulmer 1993; Cram 1997;
Egeberg and Trondal 1999; Hix 1998; Olsen 1998). More
recently, however, the attention amongst social
constructivist scholars has also been directed to
European integration and processes of Europeanization
(e.g. Journal of European Public Policy, special issue
1999). This article aims at comparing these two strands
of theory. Comparing social constructivism to
organization theory perspectives identifies striking
similarities as regards the insights gained (cf. Berger
and Luckmann 1966). Hence, I argue that the social
mechanisms addressed within social constructivist
accounts are largely identical, or at least strikingly
similar to those posed by different organization theory
perspectives. Consequently, one rationale for comparing
these two strands of arguments rests on the observation
that (i) they address the same dependent variables, i.e.
decision behaviour, identity formation and role
conceptions, and (ii) that some of the underlying
mechanisms explaining these variables are nearly
identical.
Both social constructivism and organization theory go
largely beyond a sui generis view of social
dynamics in general, and the European integration project
in particular. Both bodies of literature are also
cross-disciplinar in character. Still, different
`schools' have crystalized within both these literatures.
This article compares `modernist' constructivism within
the study of international relations on the one hand
(Adler 1997; Barnett 1993; Checkel 1999c; Risse 2000;
Katzenstein 1996), and organization theory perspectives
from political science more generally on the other. The
overall rationale of comparing them is to emphasise the
striking similarities existing between these to strands
of theory.
Regarding the dependent variables
underpinning this study, both social constructivism and
organizational theory deal with the construction of
identities, role conceptions and decision behaviour
amongst domestic government officials. [1] When studying these
variables, the frame of reference is national
governmental officials participating on committees and
working groups within the European Union (EU). This frame
is chosen because officials who participate in several
polities simultaneously are assumed to be challenged as
regards their identifications, role conceptions and modes
of acting. The empirical frame, focusing on dual
memberships within different polities or organizations,
also allows for uncovering the basic mechanisms advanced
by social constructivists and by organizational theory -
ultimately revealing possible similarities between the
two.
This article starts by sketching briefly the social
constructivist notion, its research focus and the general
social mechanisms emphasised. Next, this study argues
that the basic mechanisms addressed by social
constructivist scholars can be translated into more
general organization theory insights. The social
mechanisms emphasised by the social constructivist notion
can be transposed into three more basic sets of
mechanisms - rational, cognitive and integrative
mechanisms. Thus, the host of social mechanisms addressed
by social constructivist scholars are not exclusive, and
are `in no way distinct to constructivism' (Moravcsik
1999: 674). Translating social constructivist arguments
into organization theory arguments shows that the social
constructivist perspective fits into an integrative
perspective and a cognitive organization theory
perspective (March and Olsen 1995; Simon 1997)
The following study exhibits one
fundamental asymmetry: Whereas the discussion of social
constructivism is solely of a theoretical nature, the
organization theory section introduces empirical
illustrations concerning civil servants participating on
EU committees. This bias is basically due to a general
lack of operationalizable institutional concepts within
past social constructivist literature. [2] Generally, social
constructivist contributions are meta-theoretical om
nature. Only occasionally are testable hypotheses
addressed (Checkel 1999c). Thus, when aiming at studying
under what institutional conditions social and
organizational structures mould actors' identities, role
conceptions and modes of acting, social constructivist
literature provides only modest help (Moravcsik 1999:
670). Past research on social constructivism asks mostly whether
institutions matter in this respect (e.g. Katzenstein
1996). Hence, the empirical examples outlined in the
final section are derived from organization theory
concepts, and are aimed at illuminating how different
institutional contexts construct identities, role
conceptions and modes of behaviour differently.
Thus, two research questions are
traced within this article, one theoretical and one
empirical: First, what are the similarities between
social constructivism and orgnaizational theory regarding
the basic mechanisms addressed? Secondly, do dual
memberships in different polities cause different
identities, role conceptions and codes of conduct to
emerge, or are these features of `the self' unaffected by
this duality. [3]
Social Mechanisms in
Social Constructivism. Unpacking a Middle-Range Notion
Social constructivism and organization theory
addresses some of the same question: how do we render
intelligible the construction of the `self'? As a
scholarly discipline, however, social constructivism is
fairly embryonic compared to organization theory. Still,
social constructivists have largely ignored important
insights from past and contemporary organization theory.
Only recently have such cross-disciplinary efforts been
carried out (e.g. Checkel 1999b). [4]
One important reason for this general lack of
cross-disciplinary learning may be due to differences in
levels of analysis: Whereas social constructivism and
post-modernism has been mainly devoted to meta-analysis,
other social theories, i.e. organization theory, are more
middle-range in nature, analysing the `cogs and wheels'
bringing social elements into correlation. [5] Hence, when aiming
at bridging disciplinary divides, this article suggests
social constructivism be perceived as a middle-range
`theory' (Checkel 1998b: 325; 1999c).
Middle-range theories are basically `mechanism-driven'
- the central question being which basic elements link
different social phenomena together. Central to any
middle-range theory is to detect scope conditions, or
probability conditions, specifying `switching points' for
when certain social dynamics are likely to come about and
when others are less likely to materialize (Checkel
1999c: 2). In this article, actors' identities, role
conceptions and codes of conduct are perceived as
reflecting some underlying basic social mechanisms. In
this section the notion of mechanisms in social enquiry
is briefly touched upon, followed by mapping social
mechanisms stressed within social constructivism.
Social mechanisms may be understood as those sets `of
stable elements that provide a plausible account of how I
and O are linked to one another' (Hedstrom and
Swedberg 1998: 7 - original emphasis). Social mechanisms
are not only those social `cogs and wheels' that bring
this relationship into existence (Elster 1989), but also
the `logics by which social scientists render
understandable the reality they depict' (Hernes 1998:
74). The notion of social mechanisms is often paired with
the principle of methodological individualism, that is,
that the elementary `causal agents' are always
individual actors... (Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998:
11). On this very premise, rationality is singled out as the
central mechanism within social life. One basic problem
exhibited by this methodology, however, is that
mechanisms transcending the logic of consequentiality
(March and Olsen 1995) `must either be ignored..., or
they must be endogenized, which seems unrealistic given
the current state of social theory' (Hedstrom and
Swedberg 1998: 12). On the contrary, moving beyond the
premise of theoretical parsimony is vital whenever this
move has some overall implication for the degree of fit
between theory and reality. Moving beyond methodological
individualism is both compatible with the notion of
middle-range theory, and conducted by social
constructivist scholars. Observing several real world
phenomena not fitting the model requirements in the
rational choice approach, a `constructivist turn' has
occurred in recent international relations (IR) theory
(Checkel 1998b). This turn, however, is as much a
reaction to the post-modernist body of literature as it
is a reaction to the neo-liberal account. Thus, it aims
at seizing a middle ground between actor-oriented and
more structure-oriented approaches. In the following, a
brief review of the social constructivist arguments will
be provided, followed by an outline of some basic
mechanisms addressed by this theoretical account.
The basic research agenda for social constructivists
is directed towards endogenizing social mechanisms
excluded or held constant by rational choice
perspectives. The social constructivist perspective
basically argues that the social context embedding actors
has some fundamental implications for the behaviour,
identities and roles enacted by those actors. Actors are
seen as endogenised as wholes - their actions,
interactions and their identities (Caderman and Daase
1998). `The identities, interests and behavior of
political agents are socially constructed by collective
meaning, interpretations and assumptions about the world'
(Adler 1997: 324). Social context and interaction
processes are seen as constraining and constituting
agents at the same time (Checkel 1999a).
The social constructivist research
agenda is often pictured as a middle ground between more
neo-liberal, rational choice accounts and more
post-modernist notions (Adler 1997). The social
constructivist perspective has thus positioned itself
along an agent-structure spectrum, questioning, on the
meta-level, some of the ontological and epistemological
assumptions advanced by neo-liberals and post-modernists.
The social constructivist position in this debate focuses
on a non-materialistic ontology, as do post-modernists,
and on a mutual constitutive dynamic, they thus try to
bridge the ontological gap between actors and structures.
[6] However, whereas
agency was largely ignored by post-modernism, social
constructivism aims at reintroducing this concept into
the analysis, emphasising embedded rationality, in
addition to upholding the notion of `structure' and
`social contexts'. This study does not try to argue on
the meta-level, thus, leaving the ontological and
epistemological discussion largely behind. This article
rather stresses the general mechanisms traced within
different social constructivist contributions.
In order to make a distinction between
social constructivism and general organization theory
perspectives, one might argue that organization theory
studies how different social contexts contribute to the
enactment of certain elements within a fairly fixed
repertoire of identities, roles and codes of conduct. [7] Social
constructivists, on the other hand, study the initial
construction of identities, role conceptions and codes of
conduct, thus rendering central features of the self as
variables. Put differently, whereas social constructivism
aims at understanding how in example roles and identities
are constructed, organization theory is more geared
towards understanding how pre-existing identities and
roles are activated and deactivated in particular
organizational contexts. Moreover, social constructivism
and organization theory perspectives perceive actors as
`multiple selves' (Elster 1986), consisting of a plethora
of identities, roles and possibilities for action.
Organization theory pictures agents as having a
particular and fixed set of responses to be enacted in
particular institutional contexts, whereas social
constructivism analyses how different elements within
this repertoire initially came about. Despite these
differences, some basic similarities still have to be
identified regarding the social mechanisms addressed by
social constructivists and organization theorists.
As underscored in the above discussion, social
contexts and social institutions are perceived as vital
for both social constructivists and for organization
theory perspectives. However, and somewhat misleading, it
has been argued that social constructivists largely
neglect institutions in their models (Pasic 1996). Wendt
(1996) argues that no conceptions of interests or beliefs
exist prior to interaction. Wendt's position is
criticized for being context-free, ignoring the
pre-socialized actor entering interaction processes.
Actors are thus perceived as `tabula rasa' prior to
interaction processes (Inayatullah and Blaney 1996; Pasic
1996). On the other hand, the institutional concepts
addressed by social constructivists are criticized for
being too vague, they point to a `system' out
there, but they do not unpack central
characteristics of this system (Pasic 1996: 88). It is
therefore difficult to deduce precise implications when
it comes to identities, roles and codes of conduct on the
basis of the institutional concepts addressed by social
constructivists. This criticism reflects a more general
tendency amongst several social constructivist scholars
to ignore operationalizing and conceptionalizing the
social contexts within which actors operate (Inayatullah
and Blaney 1996; Pasic 1996). This is not to say,
however, that this body of literature ignores
institutions as such.
Having outlined some basic ideas
addressed by social constructivists, I now classify some
of the basic mechanisms underpinning this scholarly
field. The following classification of social mechanisms
are suggested: (i) rational choice mechanisms, (ii)
cognitive mechanisms, and (iii) integrative mechanisms. [8] This classification
scheme is based upon organization theory literature. The
overall rationale for advancing this particular set of
social mechanisms as the basis for theoretical comparison
is that these mechanisms provide different dynamics and
`outcomes' as regards the construction of identities,
role conceptions and modes of acting.
Rational choice mechanisms: Several
contributions to the social constructivist body of
literature emphasise mechanisms largely consistent with
rational choice notions (Checkel 1999c: 7; Moravcsik
1999: 675). Adler (1997) discusses the impact of
authoritative agents as to make certain social facts
taken for granted. Furthermore, Wendt (1994 and 1996) and
Checkel (1998a) discuss the importance of conscious
strategies on behalf of interacting actors. Likewise,
Risse and Sikkink (1999: 5) talk about instrumental
adaptation and strategic bargaining. Finally,
constructivists literature pays heed to the degree of
conflict between interacting actors (Checkel 1999c; Wendt
1994) and the dynamics of unintended consequences (Wendt
1996; Ruggie 1998). Seen from a rational choice
perspective, identities, role conceptions and codes of
conduct are subject to the strategies and interests of
purposeful actors. The potential for reconstructing these
properties of the self, however, is limited because
actors' identifications and role conceptions are held
constant within rational choice models. The potential for
shifting incentives when changing social contexts, on the
other hand, is more likely. Identities and role
conceptions, however, are perceived as constant features
of the self, and thus are not affected by social
interaction.
Cognitive mechanisms: Consistent with a social
psychological perspective, social constructivism also
draws heavily on cognitive theory focusing on cognitive
schemes, cognitive evolution, lesson drawing, persuasion,
deliberation and arguing as processes determined by the
allocation and acquisition of information (Adler 1997;
Checkel 1998a, 1998b, 1999b and 1999c; Finnemore and
Sikkink 1999: 31; Klotz 1995: 32; Wendt 1994). Attention
is perceived as being a scarce resource. Whereas the
rational choice perspective perceives
`taken-for-grantedness' as a result of conscious
strategies, cognitive theory perceives this phenomena as
resulting from selective exposure towards information,
thus unconsciously biasing the search-processes conducted
by each actor (cf. Hopf 1998). Within a cognitive
perspective, organizational borderlines are seen as
buffers to attention, biasing the information exposed to
the decision makers (March and Olsen 1995). `Cognitive
structures simplify when there is too much, and they thus
allow the perceiver to reduce an enormously complex
environment to a manageable number of meaningful
categories' (Markus and Zajonc 1984: 143). Within a
cognitive notion, organizational boundaries resemble
cognitive buffers to attention and information.
Organizational boundaries make it possible to decompose
complex tasks into sub-tasks that can be carried out
within relatively independent units of governance. Hence,
organization structures contribute to the development of
`cognitive short cuts' (Johnson 1987: 45). Organizational
boundaries thus systematically contextualize and bias the
enactment of identities, role perceptions and modes of
behaviour conducted by organizational members (March
1994; Johnson 1987).
Consequently, identities, role conceptions and modes
of behaviour are seen as relatively easy to mould and
re-mould on the basis of organizing and reorganizing
organizational structures (Nkomo and Cox jr. 1996). If
organizations are organized along new constitutive lines,
the members within the organization are likely to be
systematically exposed to new sets of information
(Schattschneider 1960). Thus, reorganizing from one
principle of organization to another will alter the flow
of information within the organization, ultimately
changing the flow of information exposed to each
decision-maker. In other words, certain stimuli tend to
produce certain responses. Having internalized a
multitude of identities, role perceptions and codes of
conduct, certain stimuli - like organizational boundaries
- will evoke or activate only a limited proportion of
this repertoire of responses (Sev�n 1996). Hence, by
reorganizing the set of stimuli exposed to the actor, the
responses are also likely to alter systematically.
Processes of re-allocating information may, however,
also result from processes where orgnaizational members
change institutional affiliations: Actors changing
organizational affiliations, in example moving from
domestic ministries to EU institutions, are exposed to
new sets of information systematically presented to them
through new organizational structures. Hence, new
cognitive short cuts are constructed as a result of being
exposed to new sets of information within EU
institutions.
Integrative mechanisms: Finally, social
constructivism draws heavily on what March and Olsen
(1995) call integrative mechanisms. One conclusion drawn
from this perspective is that it is almost
impossible to eradicate an old identity. In this respect
the world appears a `living museum' of identities and
loyalties... (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996: 36;
Aggestam 1998). These properties of the self are thus
seen as relatively resistant to change. This tendency towards inertia, however, is conditioned by
the length of exposure to a particular norm, institution,
culture, etc. The length of exposure to certain
institutional contexts is assumed to impinge heavily on
actors' belief systems, identities, roles and codes of
conduct (Risse and Sikkink 1999; Finnemore and Sikkink
1998). [9] Intensive
and protracted exposure to certain norms arguably changes
the `inner self' of the actor or the institution (Checkel
1999c: 10; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). It is further
argued that the time of birth of a social organization is
vital for understanding the constitution of actors'
identities, role conceptions and modes of behaviour.
Consistent with rational choice arguments, the way actors
play out initially may constrain later moves available to
the actors. Consistent with the integrative perspective,
path dependency is assumed to constrain the future choice
opportunities available after certain choices are made
(March and Olsen 1995).
Inertia and resistance to change are explained with
reference to political socialization processes (Aggestam
1998), processes of symbolic interaction (Checkel 1998b;
Ruggie 1998), and communicative rationality (Price and
Reus-Smith 1998; Wendt 1996). Furthermore, social
constructivists focus on the degree of `cultural match'
across systems (Checkel 1999a; Wendt 1996), the logic of
appropriateness (Checkel 1998a; Risse 2000),
argumentative persuasion (Checkel 1999c) and regulative
rules (Ruggie 1998) in order to understand how different
social contexts mould actors differently. Finally, we
might subsume linguistic practises, religious beliefs,
moral norms, demonstration effects and more general
diffusion processes as mechanisms under the integrative
notion (Ruggie 1998; Wendt 1996; Checkel 1999a).
* * *
One general purpose of this classification of
mechanisms is to make them fit better the mechanisms
addressed by different organization theory perspectives.
In making this cross-theoretical comparison, similarities
across theoretical and disciplinary crossroads may be
highlighted, strengthening the potential for bridging
gaps between them. This classification scheme also
contributes to some loss of information. The
classification scheme is thus outlined in the name of
simplification and comparison. The next section begins by
outlining some basic organization theory arguments in
order to identify similarities between social
constructivism and organization theory perspectives
through mapping certain social mechanisms underpinning
organization theory arguments. Bridging the gap between
these theoretical schools of thought might contribute to
bluring the distinction between them, ultimately making
cross-theoretical learning possible.
Organization Theory: A
Framework for Classification
Theories of public bureaucracies and organizations on
the one hand, and theories of international relations on
the other hand, have had a somewhat equal life-span up
till now, both being born in the aftermath of the 1930's
and 1940's. [10]
The theoretical similarities are strong, being dominated
by rationalistic and realistic perspectives in the
post-World-War II period. The 1980's and 1990's, however,
have witnessed a theoretical turning-point within these
camps towards greater emphasis attached to contextualized
and embedded social practises (Christiansen, J�rgensen
and Wiener 1999; Price and Reus-Smidt 1998). Some of the
possible micro-foundations underlying this theoretical
turn, however, were identified earlier within
organization theory than within IR theory, as manifested
by Simon's celebrated work on organizations, which
emphasised man's bounded rationality (Simon 1997).
However, whereas Simon discovered the cognitive nature of
institutions in the 1950s and 60s, March and Olsen (1995)
discovered or re-discovered the integrative, inclusive
nature of institutions in the 1990s.
The new-institutionalism in organizational analysis
presents a multitude of perspectives, interpretations and
levels of analysis (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; March and
Olsen 1995; Scott 1987). One common denominator
integrating this plurality is the emphasis attached to
contextualized endogenous decision behaviour, identity
and belongingness. People are perceived of as homo
politicus as much as homo economicus.
Attention is focused on the way different contexts mould
behaviour, identities and roles differently. Institutions
not only constrain these elements, they also contribute
to constituting them (March and Olsen 1995). Organization
theory perspectives aim at understanding how different
organizational contexts contribute to the enactment of
different identities, role conceptions and modes of
acting amongst organizational members. Organization
members are perceived as collections of identities, roles
and modes of behaviour, and different organizational
contexts are pictured as contributing to activateing some
roles, identities and codes of conduct, and to
de-activating others. However, the three organization
perspectives outlined bellow disagree on how easily
organization members are able to evoke new
identities, role conceptions and codes of conduct
subsequent to changing organizational contexts. They
fundamentally disagree on how easily these features of
the `self' can be moulded and remoulded.
In the following, social
constructivism is re-analyzed under the rational,
cognitive and integrative organizational perspectives.
Within each perspective some comments are provided
regarding processes of `Europeanization' subsequent to
national governmental officials being participants on
committees and working groups at the EU level of
governance. Empirical studies are referred to in the
analysis due to the overall lack of generalizable
institutional concepts within social constructivist
accounts. [11] This
lack has contributed to a general deficiency of, and a
striking unwillingness by social
constructivists to set forth distinctive and empirically
testable hypotheses (Moravcsik 1999: 678). Analysing EU
committees allows illuminating how identities, roles and
decision behaviours are affected by certain
organizational structures. Central to this discussion are
the cognitive and integrative organization theory
perspectives, paying only modest attention to the
rational choice perspective.
A Rational Choice Perspective: Committees as Arenas for
Combat and Compromise.
In contrast to the cognitive and integrative
perspectives outlined bellow, the aggregative rational
choice perspective perceives of decision processes as
products of exogenously defined preferences and
strategies (Chong 1996). Decisions and organizational
borders resemble `negotiated orders'. Institutional
arrangements are seen as arenas for giving and taking and
make no independent impact on these processes.
Preferences and identities are perceived as highly static
within these models, only opening up for dynamism related
to actors' strategies. An aggregative perspective thus
views identities and role perceptions as highly static
within decision processes, while decision behaviours are
seen as changing due to changing strategies.
Institutional variables are at best perceived as
intervening variables, not as independent variables, when
explaining these changes (Aspinwall and Schneider 1998:
15).
Current literature on European integration and
processes of `Europeanization' also markedly reflect this
perspective, perceiving decision processes directed
towards the EU as two-level games, where the `national
interests' are moulded domestically and then negotiated
at different arenas within the Union (Moravcsik 1998;
Putnam 1988). `States first define preferences ... then
they debate, bargain, or fight to particular agreements'
(Moravcsik 1997: 544). Consistent with the above
arguments, when domestic government officials participate
within committees at the EU level, the identities and
role perceptions evoked by these officials are perceived
as constant features. Committees are seen as arenas for
articulating and aggregating exogenously defined
preferences (Polsby 1975). They are seen as meetings
points where actors give-and-take - do et des
(Sartori 1987: 214). Preferences, identities and
belongingness are constructed prior to participation on
committees. Hence, the aggregative perspective leaves no
room for outlining any hypotheses as far as changes in
officials' identities and role perceptions are concerned,
subsequent to their participation on committees at the EU
level.
A Cognitive Perspective: Committees as Agents of
Simplification.
A cognitive notion of institutionalism views
organization structures as complexity-reducing
mechanisms. Decision-makers' attention are scarce, and
the possibility of attending to all available information
is limited. Hence, decision-makers need to reduce the
overwhelming amounts of information so they can act. For
organizational designers, one way of reducing this
information-overload is to carve up the organization
horizontally and vertically, thus creating buffers
against certain information, certain considerations and
certain stimuli. Organizational specialization thus
implies systematic selection of information, which
contributes to systematically biasing the conceptions of
identities, roles and modes of acting evoked by the
organizational members (Schattschneider 1960). One
important implication derived from this argument is:
Search processes conducted by organization members may be
constructed and re-constructed on the basis of designing
and re-designing formal organization boundaries (Egeberg 1994). When re-designing
organizations, search processes conducted by the
organization members alter systematically, thus amending
their identities, role conceptions and codes of conduct.
Consistent with this argument, if organization members
change organizational affiliation over night, the
cognitive perspective assumes that the identities, role
conceptions and modes of acting may change `over night'. [12] This notion is in
line with Wendt's assumption about the lack of
pre-socialized agents: Agent's identities, roles and
codes of conduct become constructed and re-constructed in
the course of interaction. When actors change the context
within which interaction occurs, interaction processes
are assumed to change, unbiased by prior
interaction-contexts. When it comes to the permanence and
durability of these change processes, cognitive buffers
against information may lead to limited lasting impacts
on the actors.
Social constructivists have been
criticized for not operationalizing or conceptualizing
the institutional contexts within which actors interact
(e.g. Pasic 1996: 88). Whereas several social mechanisms
have been identified in the above analysis, social
constructivism has been rather vague on how institutional
structures condition the relative validity of different
social mechanisms. [13]
Only a few efforts have been devoted to specifying the
institutional conditions under which different social
mechanisms are likely to have primacy (cf. Checkel
1999c). Institutions have been seen as a a `system'
out there without bringing them deeply into the
analysis (Pasic 1996: 88). Hence, the social structure
embedding social interaction is too often implicit in the
analysis. To illuminate how different organizational
settings may affect actors' identities, role perceptions
and modes of acting differently, two organizational
dimensions are analyzed in the following: (i)
organizational principles, and (ii) the intensity of
interaction within organizations. Within this study,
organizational forms, and the intensity and length of
participation within and across organizations are studied
in order to highlight the content evoked by
organizational structures, and the strength of these
effects.
First, organizational forms or principles are
important and basic features of organizational
structures. This dimension has to do with which
questions, considerations and solutions horizontally
linked, and which questions and actors are systematically
kept apart within organizational boundaries.
Organizational forms can be drawn along various settings
(Bartolini 1997). One suggestion by Luther Gulick (1937)
is to separate organizations as to whether they are
specialized according to a purpose principle, a process
principle, a clientele principle and finally an area
principle. Sufficient for the purpose here is to show how
different organizational forms contribute to the
enactment of different identities, role
conceptions and modes of acting amongst organizational
members. This study focuses on how the organizational
principles underpinning the EU Commission and the Council
of the European Union may affect actors' conceptions of
selves, arguing that the EU Commission is organized,
basically, according to a purpose principle, while the
Council is largely organized according to an area
principle (Egeberg and Trondal 1999). I argue that these
organizational principles are likely to affect
identities, role conceptions and modes of acting
differently.
Organizing the EU-system according to the principle of
purpose or sector, as may be observed in the EU
Commission (Egeberg and Trondal 1997), may systematically
evoke sectorally based modes of decision behaviour,
identities and role perceptions amongst the
organizational members (Bellier 1997; Egeberg 1996;
Hooghe 1997; Michelmann 1978; Middlemas 1995: 242-265).
Sectorally defined modes of identifying, perceiving one's
roles, and acting do not necessarily imply that these
properties are especially geared towards sector A or
sector B, but that they are more generally oriented
towards sectoral variation and differentiation
(Hammond 1986). The sector logic is shown empirically to
be strongest at the unit level within the EU Commission
services, whereas the national, territorial logic is
observed to be stronger at the Commissioner level
(Egeberg 1996). This is due largely to the greater
primacy of territorial principles of organization at the
Commissioner level compared to the unit level. Landfried
(1997) shows, however, that even at the level of the
Commissioners a sectoral logic is prevalent. Different
dynamics may have primacy at different hierarchical
levels within the Commission structure due to different
principles of organization being uppermost at different
hierarchical levels. Consistent with this argument,
McDonald (1998: 60-61) observes conflicting
identifications amongst Commission officials, oscillating
between an `esprit europ�en' and national
identifications. Notwithstanding being largely
functionally organized, the Commission thus contains
several partially contending organizing principles.
Organizing, on the other hand, according to the area
principle, as may be observed in the Council of the
European Union (Egeberg and Trondal 1997), means that a
territorial logic is likely to accompany modes of
behaviour, identifications and senses of belonging
(Kerremans 1996; Beyers and Dierickx 1997). Area-based
modes of identifying, perceiving one's roles, and acting
do not necessarily imply being especially geared towards
area A or area B, but being more generally oriented
towards geographical variation and differentiation
(Hammond 1986). When entering formal meetings within
Council working parties, domestic officials are
frequently reminded of their role as government
representatives (Egeberg 1999). National role conceptions
may be evoked solely due to the quest or plea from other
representatives for `national positions' on different
subject matters. Changes in the Council's voting
procedures towards greater use of qualified majority
voting (QMV) may strengthen the area logic of the Council
even further: Not having the exit option of the veto, the
sheer volume of negotiation and compromise between
different member states may be strengthened - enhancing
the territorial and nation state dynamic within the
Council structure (Hayes-Renshaw and Wallace 1997).
Earlier, when unanimity was a more widespread
voting-procedure in the Council, the need for
negotiations and exchanges between different state
representatives was lesser. Within the Council structure
the element of sector specialization is most prevalent at
the working party level. Even at this level, however,
Egeberg (1999) shows that domestic officials act as
national representatives and not solely as functional
experts. Similarly, Beyers and Dierickx (1997) and
Dierickx and Beyers (1998) reveal that communication
networks within these working parties are largely
influenced by the nationality of the officials.
When organizing a system of governance according to
more than one principle, several conflicting
considerations might be attended to simultaneously and
thus contribute to a multi-faceted system of governance
comprising multiple identities, role perceptions and
codes of conduct. Furthermore, partially conflicting
principles of organization are also frequently built into
each organizational structure: Within the expert
committees under the EU Commission a geographical
principle runs parallel with the sectoral principle due
to domestic representation within them. Correspondingly,
a sectoral principle supplements the area principle
within the working parties under the Council due to these
groups being divided into sectorally-based units.
According to the cognitive perspective, exposure to
new information as a result of being exposed to new
organization principles, may affect the search processes
and the allocation of attention by the organization
members. National government officials participating on
expert committees may thus be exposed to different
stimuli than may officials participating on Council
working parties. This difference, however, is likely to
be weakened owing to contending principles of
organization being present within each committee and
working group, and due to the fact that several
government officials frequently participate both on
expert committees under the Commission and on
working parties under the Council. The impact of the
institutional context at the EU level is also
fundamentally conditioned by the domestic institutional
context, which is the primary institutional
affiliation for the government officials (cf. Barnett
1993). These propositions are empirically supported by
the studies of Beyers (1998), Egeberg (1999) and Hooghe
(1999).
Consistent with Checkel's (1999a) focus on the match
between different cultural patterns as a decisive
mechanism for fusion between different `systems',
organization theory pays attention to matches in
organizational structures (Caporaso, Cowles and Risse
1999; March and Olsen 1995). This is important because
government officials frequently participate in different
organizational settings that are organized according to
different underlying principles: Domestic government
officials have their primary organizational
affiliation at the domestic level - within the ministries
or the agencies. The potential for being affected and
penetrated by new information gained at the EU level is
thus likely to be conditioned by the degree of
organizational match between domestic organizational
structures and organizational structures at the EU level.
When domestic government officials participate at the EU
level of governance, one central hypothesis will be: These
officials will evoke the identities, role conceptions and
codes of conduct at the EU level that are most compatible
with the ones normally being evoked domestically.
Hence, it is more likely that officials employed in
sector ministries and agencies will identify themselves
with sectoral expert roles and act in accordance with
them, whilst officials employed in Foreign Ministries
will evoke identities and roles more nationally oriented.
Officials employed within sector ministries or agencies
may become penetrated by institutional dynamics within
expert committees under the EU Commission, while
officials employed in Foreign Ministries become affected
to a greater extent by institutional dynamics within the
Council working parties (Trondal 1998).
Further, social constructivism and organization theory
perspectives, in addition to focusing on principles of
organization, also focus on the intensity of
interaction or participation within organizational
structures. Consistent with Finnemore and Sikkink's
(1998) and Checkel's (1999b: 549 and 1999c: 10) emphasis
on the length of exposure to certain normative
structures, organization theory assumes a positive
relationship will materialize between the duration and
intensity of interaction amongst organization members and
the potential for being socialized into certain roles and
identity conceptions (Berger and Luckmann 1966). [14]
Expert committees and working parties at the EU level
are largely collegial arrangements of a non-permanent
nature, being composed largely of `part-timers' whose
primary institutional allegiances are elsewhere. The
socialization potential is assumed to be, and is also
empirically shown to be, weaker within temporal collegial
organizations compared to more permanent hierarchical
organizations. This hypothesis is empirically supported
within the European Parliament (Bowler and Farrell 1995;
Katz 1997) and within the American Congress (Fenno 1962).
Collegial organizations are characterized as being
composed of members who have their main organizational
affinities to other organizations, the members thus being
pre-socialized when attending the
collegium. Ceteris paribus, the socialization
potential of the collegium, however, is assumed to be
strengthened if the committee participants attend the
committee often, if he or she is a senior participant, if
the same participants meet regularly, and if each
colleague generally devotes a major amount of time
participating within the collegial setting (Dierickx and
Beyers 1999). [15]
Empirical evidence indicates that intensive participation
[16] within
collegial arrangements contributes to co-evolvement of
role perceptions, belongingness and patterns of behaviour
among the colleagues (e.g. Fenno 1962; `t Hart et al.
1997). Hence, intensity of participation is assumed to
blur the organizational boundaries between the collegium
and the `core-organization'; in this study blurring the
borderlines between the EU level and the domestic central
administrative branch (Risse 1996).
One important insight obtained by this cognitive
account is that actors may be highly pre-socialized when
entering new institutional contexts. Still, when actors
change institutional contexts, the identities, role
conceptions and modes of action changes relatively easily
subsequent to being exposed to new information. In
addition, these features of `the self' become changed and
biased in particular ways. However, when
membership in the `old organization' is maintained after
changing organizational affiliation, the change processes
are subject to inertia due to organization members' being
exposed to several bodies of information simultaneously.
The question of institutional inertia is dealt with more
thoroughly within the integrative perspective.
An Integrative Perspective: Committees as Slow
Transformers.
Moving towards an integrative organizational
perspective, we move from a logic of consequensiality
towards a logic of appropriateness. Whereas the cognitive
perspective is based on an underlying assumption of
bounded rationality, the integrative perspective is based
on assumptions going beyond the logic of consequentiality
(March and Olsen 1989). The central logic is matching
identities and roles to particular situations. People and
government officials are `multiple selves' with multiple
identifications, multiple roles and multiple codes of
conduct. The element to be evoked within this set of
identities, roles and codes of conduct is determined by
who you perceive yourself to be and the situation you
perceive yourself to be embedded in. The central logic is
that of matching ones repertoire of identities, roles and
modes of acting to specific (institutional) situations.
Seen from the cognitive and the rational perspective,
decision-makers have to make guesses about future
consequences and future preferences before acting; from
the integrative perspective decision makers have to make
guesses about (i) the nature of the situation within
which they are embedded, and (ii) the appropriate
responses to this `situation'.
Organizational boundaries are perceived as more than
buffers to attention. They are also perceived as formal,
cognitive, demographic, temporal and symbolic
arrangements (Egeberg 1994: 85). They grow, blossom and
die through long `historical processes of interpretation,
learning and habituation' (Olsen 1995: 28). Drawing and
redrawing organizational borders affectd decision
behaviour not only on the basis of search-processes, but
also on the basis of matching identities and role
perceptions to particular situations. Within this
perspective, processes of identity and role formation and
the co-evolution of these elements are much more complex
than perceived by the cognitive perspective. These
processes involve more than the allocation and
reallocation of attention. They also involve the
development of self and others, of `ins' and `outs', of
friends and enemies (March and Olsen 1995). Identities
attached to the nation state administrations are seen as
vital for the conception of the `self' and for the
framing of `others', thus making redefinition of
identities relatively difficult. Processes of
reorganizing boundaries are thus subject to conflicts;
one implication of this being that identities and role
perceptions `can not be engineered and reengineered
overnight' (Olsen 1995: 28).
One central question addressed within this perspective
relates to which identity and role should be evoked in
which situation. `What I find ... appropriate depends to
some degree on who I am and how I see myself' (Risse and
Sikkink 1999: 14). Problems occur, however, when guesses
about the nature of the situation, and/or about
appropriate responses to this `situation' are difficult
to make. As seen from an integrative perspective,
domestic governmental officials entering expert
committees and working parties at the EU level for the
first time might strive with such difficulties. The
institutional context may be perceived of as new and
novel to them, thus making it difficult to decide which
identity and role to evoke. The situation and the
appropriate response to it may seem ambiguous to the
actor (March 1994: 137). Several factors might contribute
to makeing the institutional context at the EU level
novel and unfamiliar: the committees are physically
distant from the member state, the meeting rooms are
often bigger, and the setting is multi-national and
multi-linguistic. The meetings within EU committees are,
thus, separated in time and space from decision
situations within domestic government institutions. This
ambiguity regarding which identity and role to evoke in
which situation easily activates a logic of recency,
implying that recently evoked identities, roles and modes
of behaviour are likely to be evoked again (March 1994:
70). The potential thus exists immanent for evoking
identities and roles compatible to identities and roles
evoked domestically. The likelihood of evoking domestic
based identities and roles at the European level is
assumed to be strengthened if the official is a senior
governmental official with little or no prior experience
of participation in international organizations or EU
committees (Beyers 1998). Beyers (1998) shows that the
attitudes towards European integration reflect prior
national socialization experiences. Similarly, Feld and
Wildgen (1975), and Scheinman and Feld (1972) indicate
that processes of resocializing domestic civil servants
towards an `European idea' are difficult.
On the other hand, the likelihood of
evoking new identities and roles may be affected
by the sheer length of participation within committees at
the EU level. [17]
Protracted participation is likely to render the `new'
institutional context familiar to the official. What is
appropriate, and which role and identity are appropriate
to enact at the EU level become less ambiguous as this
level becomes internalized as a part of the self. Due to
intensive and protracted participation at the EU level,
the likelihood of evoking these new `European' identities
and roles in the domestic arena also becomes
strengthened. Consistent with the logic of recency, if
committee participants attend the committees often, if he
or she is a senior participant, if the same participants
meet regularly, and if each organizational member
generally devotes a major amount of time participating
within the collegial setting, the potential is
strengthened that the identities and roles evoked within
these committees also will be evoked when the official
has arrived at their desk in the domestic ministry or
agency. This argument is supported empirically by Checkel
(1999b), and by Coporaso, Cowles and Risse (1999).
Regarding the permanence and the durability of these
change processes, the impact of participation at the EU
level is assumed to have a more lasting effect than seen
from the cognitive perspective. The integrative argument
is thus consistent with social constructivist notions
focusing on the inertia related to changes in actors'
identities and roles. These elements of the self are seen
as generally resistant to change.
Conclusion
Whereas a constructivist turn has occurred in recent
international relations theory, a institutionalist turn
has occurred in organization theories in the 1980's and
1990's. Consistent with the arguments laid out in this
article, the theoretical turn may be rephrased: an
institutionalist turn is at present occurring in current
IR theory while a constructivist turn is occurring in
current organization theory. Social constructivism and
organization theory exhibit important similarities when
it comes to the basic underlying social mechanisms.
Important internal divisions and disagreements, however,
do exist within these theoretical schools of thought.
Hence, any classification scheme might be drawn along
different lines. This article suggests a threefold
classification scheme where social mechanisms are seen as
rational, cognitive and integrative.
Generally, comparing social constructivism and
organization theory perspectives along this spectrum
uncovers several fundamental similarities regarding the
perceived `cogs and wheels' linking social phenomena
together. However, the current theoretical comparison
also reveals that concepts of institutional structures
are more adequately operationalized within organization
theory accounts than within past social constructivist
literature. Hence, the social constructivist notion can
neither be seen as `new' in any middle-range sense, nor
does this perspective more adequately account for the
construction of identities, role conceptions and codes of
conduct than do organizational theory perspectives. To
this end, the institutional concept is, at present, far
adequately and more explicitly addressed within
organization theory perspectives. Still, more recent
social constructivist work pays more emphasis to social
interaction within institutions (Checkel 1999c; Risse
2000). The notion of interaction is only marginally
toughed upon by organizational theorists, and only
presupposed by the arguments outlined here.
References
Adler, E. (1997) `Seizing the Middle Ground:
Constructivism in World Politics', European Journal of
International Relations 3 (3): 319-363.
Aggestam, L. (1998) `Role conceptions and the Politics
of Identity in Foreign Policy', unpublished paper,
University of Stockholm, Sweden.
Aspinwall, M. D. and Schneider, G. (1998) `Same Menu,
Separate Tables. The Institutionalist Turn in Political
Science and the Study of European Integration',
unpublished paper, Durham and Konstanz.
Barnett, M. (1993) `Institutions, Roles, and Disorder:
The Case of the Arab States System', International
Studies Quarterly 37: 271-296.
Bartolini, S. (1997) `Exit Options, Boundary Building,
Political Structuring', unpublished manuscript, EUI.
Bellier, I. (1997) `The Commission as an Actor: An
Antropologist's view', in H. Wallace and A. Young (eds.) Participation
and Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social
Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge, New York: Penguin Books.
Beyers, J. (1998) `How Supranational is
Supranationalism? National and European Socialization of
Negotiators in the Council of Ministers', Acta
Sociologica 33 (4): 378-408.
Beyers, J. and Dierickx, G. (1997) `Nationality and
European Negotiations: The Working Groups of The Council
of Ministers', European Journal of International
Relations 3 (4): 35-471.
Bowler, S. and Farrell, D. M. (1995) `The Organizing
of the European Parliament: Committees, Specialization
and Co-ordination', British Journal of Political
Science 25: 219-243.
Bulmer, S. J. (1993) `The Governance of the European
Union: A New Institutional Approach', Journal of
Public Policy 13: 351-380.
Caderman, L.-E. and Daase, C. (1998) `Sociational
Constructivism and European Integration', unpublished
paper, University of California at Los Angeles and Freie
Universit�t Berlin, USA and Germany.
Caporaso, J., Cowles, M. G. and Risse, T. (1999)
`Europeanization and Domestic Change', unpublished
manuscript, University of Washington, Georgetown
University and European University Institute.
Checkel, J. T. (1998a) `International Norms and
Domestic Politics: Bridging the
Rationalist-Constructivist Divide', European Journal
of International Relations. 3 (4): 473-495.
Checkel, J. T. (1998b) `The Constructivist Turn in
International Relations Theory (A Review Essay)', World
Politics 50 (2).
Checkel, J. T. (1999a) `Norms, Institutions and
National Identity in Contemporary Europe', International
Studies Quarterly 43: 83-114.
Checkel, J. T. (1999b) `Social Construction and
Integration', Journal of European Public Policy 6
(4) (Special Issue): 545-560.
Checkel, J. T. (1999c) `Why Comply? Constructivism,
Social Norms and the Study of International
Institutions', ARENA Working Paper 99/24.
Checkel, J. T. (2000) `Constructing European
Institutions', in M. Aspinwall and G. Schneider (eds.) The
Rules of Integration: The institutionalist Approach to
European Studies, Manchester: Manchester University
Press (Forthcoming).
Chong, D. (1996) `Rational Choice Theory's Mysterious
Rivals', in J. Friedman (ed.) The Rational Choice
Controversy. Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered,
New Haven. Yale University Press.
Christiansen, T., J�rgensen, K. E. and Wiener, A.
(1999) `The Social Constructions of Europe', Journal
of European Public Policy 6 (4) (Special Issue):
528-544.
Cram, L. (1997) Policy-making in the European
Union: Conceptual Lenses and the Integration Process,
London: Routledge.
Dierickx, G. and Beyers, J. (1999) `Belgian Civil
Servants in the European Union. A tale of two cultures', West
European Politics (Forthcoming).
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1991)
`Introduction', in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds.)
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Egeberg, M. (1994) `Bridging the Gap Between Theory
and Practice: The Case of Administrative Policy', Governance
7 (1): 83-98.
Egeberg, M. (1996) `Organization and Nationality in
the European Commission services', Public
Administration 74 (4): 721-735.
Egeberg, M. (1999) `Transcending Intergovernmentalism?
Role and Identity Perceptions of National Officials in EU
Decision-Making', Journal of European Public Policy 6
(3): 456-474.
Egeberg, M. and J. Trondal (1997) `An Organization
Theory Perspective on Multi-level Governance in the EU.
The Case of the EEA as a Form of Affiliation', ARENA
Working paper 21/97.
Egeberg, M. and J. Trondal (1999) `Differentiated
integration in Europe: the case of the EEA Country
Norway', Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1):
133-142.
Elster, J. (1986) The Multiple Self, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J. (1989) Nuts and Bolts for the Social
Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Elster, J. (1998) `A Plea for mechanisms', in P.
Hedstrom and R. Swedberg (eds.) SocialMechanisms. An
Analytical Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Feld, W. J. and Wildgen, J. K. (1975) `National
Administrative Elites and European Integration. Saboteurs
at Work?', Journal of Common Market Studies XIII:
244-265.
Fenno, R. F. (1962) `The House Appropriations
Committee as a Political System: The Problem of
Integration', The Americal Political Science Review
LVI: 310-324.
Ferguson, Y. H. and Mansbach, R. W. (1996) `The Past
as Prelude to the Future? Identitiesand Loyalties in
Global Politics', in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil (eds.) The
Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, London:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) `International
Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International
Organizations 52 (4): 887-917.
Gulick, L. (1937) `Notes on The Theory of
Organizations. With Special References to Government in
The United States', in L. Gulick and D. Urwick (eds.) Papers
on the Science of Administration, New York: Institute
of Public Administration, Columbia University.
Haas, E. (1958) The Uniting of Europe,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hammond, T. H. (1986) `Agenda Control, Organizational
Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics', American
Journal of Political Science 30 (1): 379-420.
Hayes-Renshaw, F. and Wallace, H. (1997) The
Council of Ministers, New York: St. Martin' s Press.
Hedstrom P. and Swedberg, R. (1998) `Social
mechanisms: An introductory essay', in P. Hestrom and R.
Swedberg (eds.) Social Mechanisms. An Analytical
Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hernes, G. (1998) `Real virtuality', in P. Hestrom and
R. Swedberg (eds.) Social Mechanisms. An Analytical
Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hix, S. (1998) `The study of the European Union II:
the `new governance' agenda and its Rivals', Journal
of European Public Policy 5 (1): 38-65.
Holsti, K. J. (1988) International Politics. A
Framework for Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International
Hooghe, L. (1997) `Serving `Europe' - Political
Orientations of Senior Commission Officials', European
Integration Online Papers (EIoP),
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/eiop-e.htm 1 (008).
Hooghe, L. (1999) `Supranational Activists or
Intergovernmental Agents? Explaining the orientations of
senior Commission officials towards European
Integration', Comparative Political Studies 32 (4)
(Forthcoming).
Hopf, T. (1998) `The Promise of Constructivism in
International Relations Theory', International
Security 23 (1): 171-200.
Johnson, G. (1987) Strategic Change and the
Management Process, New York: Bail Blackwell.Journal
of European Public Policy (1999) Special Issue on the
Social Construction of Europe 6 (4).
Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D. L. (1996) `Knowing
Encounters: Beyond Parochialism in International
Relations Theory', in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil (eds.) The
Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, London.
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Katz, R. S. (1997) `Representational roles', European
Journal of Political Science, 32: 211-226.
Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1996) The Culture of
national security: norms and identity in world Politics,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kerremans, B. (1996) `Do Institutions Make a
Difference? Non-institutionalism, Neo-institutionalism,
and the Logic of Common Decision-making in the European
Union', Governance 9 (2): 217-240.
Klotz, A. (1995) Norms in International Relations:
The Struggle Against Apartheid, Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press.
Landfried, C. (1997) `Beyond Technocratic Governance:
The Case of Biotechnology', European Law Journal 3
(3): 255-272.
McDonald, M. (1998) `Identities in the European
Commission', in N. Nugent (ed.) At the Heart of the
Union. Studies of the European Commission,
Houndmills: MacMillan Press.
March, J. G. (1984) `How We Talk and How We Act:
Administrative Theory and Administrative Life', in T. J.
Sergiovanni and J. E. Corbally (eds.) Leadership and
Organizational Cultures, Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
March, J. G. (1994) A Primer on Decision Making.
How Decisions Happen, New York: The Free Press.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1995) Democratic
Governance, New York: The Free Press.
Markus, H. and Zajonc, R. B. (1985) `The Cognitive
Perspective in Social Psychology', in G. Lindzey and E.
Aronsen (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume
I: Theory and Method, New York: Random House.
Michelmann, H. J. (1978) `Multinational staffing and
organizational functioning in the Commission of the
European Communities', International Organization
32 (2): 477-496.
Middlemas, K. (1995) Orchestrating Europe. The
Informal Politics of the European Union 1973-1995,
London: Fontana Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1997) `Taking Preferences Seriously: A
Liberal Theory of International Politics', International
Organizations 51 (4): 513-553.
Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe. Social
Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht,
London: UCL Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1999) `Is something rotten in the state
of Denmark? Constructivism andEuropean Integration', Journal
of European Public Policy 6 (4) (Special Issue):
669-681.
Niemann, A. (1998) `The PHARE programme and the
concept of spillover: neofunctionalism in the making', Journal
of European Public Policy 5 (3): 428-446.
Nkomo, S. M. and Cox, Jr. T. (1996) `Diverse
Identities in Organizations', in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy
and W. R. Nord (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies,
London: SAGE.
Olsen, J. P. (1995) `The Changing Political
Organization of Europe', in J. J. Hesse and T. A. J.
Toonen (eds.) The European Yearbook of Comparative
Government and Public Administration. Vol. II,
Nomos/Westview, Baden-Baden/Boulder.
Olsen, J. P. (1998) `Institutional Design in
Democratic Contexts', in N. Brunsson and J. P. Olsen
(eds.) Organizing Organizations, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Pasic, S. C. (1996) `Culturing International Relations
Theory: A Call for Extension', in Y. Lapid and F.
Kratochwil (eds.) The Return of Culture and Identity
in IR Theory, London. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Polsby, N. W. (1975) `Legislatures', in F. I.
Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (eds.) Handbook of
Political Science. Volume 5: Governmental Institutions
and Processes, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Price, R. and Reus-Smith, C. (1998) `Dangerous
Liaisons? Critical International Theory and
Constructivism', European Journal of International
Relations 4 (3): 259-294.
Putnam, R. D. (1988) `Diplomacy and Domestic Politics:
The Logic of Two-level-Games', International
Organization 42 (3): 427-460.
Risse-Kappen, T. (1996) `Exploring the Nature of the
Beast: International Relations TheoryAnd Comparative
Policy Analysis Meet the European Union', Journal of
Common Market Studies 34 (1): 53-80.
Risse, T. (2000) `Let's Argue!
Communicative Action in World Politics', International
Organizations 54 (Forthcoming).
Risse, T. and Sikkink, K. (1999) `The Power of
Principles: The Socialization of Human Rights Norms into
Domestic Practices', in T. Risse, S. Ropp and K. Sikkink
(eds.) The Power of Principles: International Human
Rights Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ruggie, J. (1998) Constructing the World Polity:
Essays on International Institutionalization, New
York: Routledge.
Sartori, G. (1987) The Theory of Democracy
Revisited. Part One: The Contemporary Debate,
Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign
People, New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Scheinman, L and Feld, W. (1972) `The European
Economic Community and National Civil Servants of The
Member States', International Organization 26:
121-135.
Scott, W. R. (1987) `The adolescence of Institutional
Theory', Administrative Science Quarterly 32:
493-511.
Scott, W. R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations,
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Searing, D. D. (1991) `Roles, Rules, and Rationality
in The New Institutionalism', American Political
Science Review 85 (4): 1239-1260.
Sev�n, G. (1996) `Organizational Imitation in
Identity Transformation', in B. Czarniawska and G. Sev�n
(eds.) Translating Organizational Change, Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Simon, H. (1997) Administrative Behavior,
Fourth Edition. New York: The Free Press.
`t Hart, P., Stern, E. K. and Sundelius, B. (eds.)
(1997) Beyond Groupthink. Political Group Dynamics and
Foreign Policy-making, Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press.
Trondal, J. (1998) `On Administrative Integration
Across levels of Governance. A Theoretical Account on
Principles of Organization', paper presented at ARENA
Annual Conference, Oslo, November 5-6, 1998.
Wendt, A. (1994) `Collective Identity Formation and
The International State', American Political Science
Review 88 (2): 384-396.
Wendt, A. (1996) `Identity and Structural Change in
International Politics', in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil
(eds.) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory,
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Footnotes
* This
article is financially supported by the ARENA programme
(The Norwegian Research Council), University of Oslo. An
erlier version of this article was presented at he
National Conference in Political Science, January 11 to
13, R�ros 1999. The author is indebted to the
participants at this conference.
** Departement of Political
Science, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1097 Blindern, 0317
Oslo. E-mail: jarle.trondal@stv.uio.no
.
[1] Decision
behaviour may be seen as processes where premises are
supplied and chosen (Simon 1997). Roles may be
perceived as normative expectations guiding behaviour
(Barnett 1993; Scott 1995: 42; Searing 1991). Roles are
something you have, while identity is something
you are. In this study roles are seen as formal roles
within domestic ministries and agencies, while identities
are seen as the feeling of belonging to different parts
of these domestic governmental organizations. The
relationship between roles and identities is seen as a
continuum: Having an identity is a result of
internalizing the values and goals prescribed by the
roles. Yet, the concept of identity is more contested
intellectually than the concept of role. Within cognitive
theory, identities are perceived as taking into account
consequences for external groups when deciding upon
alternatives and solutions (Simon 1997: 284). The
`New-Institutionalism', on the other hand, perceive
identities as the characters, habits of thought, senses
of reality, and codes of conduct involved in a polity
(March and Olsen 1995:51). Identities are properties
`owned' by the self, thus being a part of the self and
being indistinguishable from it. Hence, this definition
is more inclusive than the cognitive one.
[2] More
recent contributions to the social constructivist
literature are more explicit on institutional concepts
embedding social life (e.g. Checkel 1999c and 2000; Risse
2000).
[3] One
vital methodological insight gained from social
constructivism relates to the degree of objectivity of
empirical and theoretical arguments and observations. One
central concern regards the social construction of
scientific `facts'. Where you stand depends to a
considerable extent upon where you sit. Hence, the
current analysis is conducted from an organization theory
viewpoint, and by an organization theorist.
[4]
Still, social constructivists have drawn heavily from the
Meyer-school on institutional environments.
Also the notion of the logic of appropriateness of March
and Olsen (e.g. 1995) have heavily influenced more recent
modernist social constructivist scholars (Checkel 2000;
Risse 2000).
[5]
Meta-analysis, however, is a more ancient characteristic
of social constructivist literature. More contemporary
studies apply middle-range accounts to a greater extent
(Coporaso, Cowles and Risse 1999; Checkel 1999a and
1999c). Hence, the distinction between meta-analysis and
middle-range analysis does not fit perfectly to the
distinction between social constructivism and
organization theory.
[6] It
seems that social constructivists and post-modernists
agree on the importance of mutual constitutive dynamics
in meta-theoretical terms. When we come to actual
empirical research, however, many social constructivists
fix certain variables as independent variables and show
how these explain variations in dependent variables
(Checkel 1999c: 28). The tendency to fix certain
variables, and thus to abandon the mutual constitutive
logic, however, does vary between different studies.
[7]
Organization theory, however, also studies change
processes, that is changes in formal structures,
demography, physical locations etc., of organizations.
Contrary to social constructivist notions, however, the
dependent variables of such process studies are not
identities, role conceptions or modes of acting. On the
contrary, the dependent variables are of an institutional
nature.
[8] In
an effort at comparing social constructivism and
organizational theory, a comparative scheme is outlined
in this article. This scheme, however, is somewhat
misleading because a fourth mechanism is missing: the
interaction mechanism. This mechanism has
started to show up in more recent social constructivist
work (Checkel 1999c; Risse 2000). This mechanism
addresses processes of argumentation, deliberation,
persuasion, and the like, as scope conditions affecting
social life in large.
[9]
Social contructivists have problems when a contending
argument is introduced: One might assume that protracted
exposure towards certain norms may teach actors how to
de-couple talk and action - thus keeping the `inner self'
largely unchanged and unaffected by ways of presenting
oneself as altered (March 1984).
[10]
The study of international relations, foreign policy and
foreign politics, however, may be traced back to
Machiavelli. Still, `the main purpose of Machiavelli was
not so much to provide general analyses of the relations
between states...' (Holsti 1988: 4). Only since the
1920's has this scholarly field aimed at providing more
general and theoretic analyses and insights. Similarly,
the study of public bureaucracies and organizations has a
strong heritage back to constitutional theory of
Montesquieu, and to classical administration theory of
Wilson, Weber and Gulick. The research agenda of these
scholars are of vital importance for today's organization
theorists. Herbert Simon, in his seminal works, however,
first uncovered some of the micro-foundations and
mechanisms underpinning organizational dynamics.
[11]
As mentioned above, however, more recent social
constructivist work make more explicit arguments on the
institutional context embedding social life (cf. note 3)
[12]
Regarding how rapidly such change processes may occur a
cognitive perspective allows for more rapid change
processes than do an integrative perspective.
[13]
Checkel (1999c) and Risse (2000), however, have modified
this claim to some extent.
[14]
Duration has to do with the time span between the first
time of entry into EU committees (t1), and the time of
withdrawal from EU committees (tn). Intensity has to do
with the general level of engagement into the committees
during this time period.
[15]
This argument, lending towards neo-functionalist notions,
may be conditioned by other variables. Consistent with
the arguments in this article, the effect emanating from
length of participation may be conditioned by different
organizational principles.
[16]
The notion of social interaction lays implicit within
this argument. Whereas recent social constructivist work
pays attention towards social interaction, organization
theory pays more heed towards the institutional
structures within which this interaction occurs.
[17]
Cf. note 16.
[Date of publication in the ARENA
Working Paper series: 15.11.1999]
|