REINTERPRETING NEW INSTITUTIONALISM THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL RESILIENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56015/gjikplp.v12i2.589Keywords:
New Institutionalism; Institutional Resilience; Performance Regime Theory; Institutional Evolution; Governance PerformanceAbstract
New Institutionalism has long provided the core framework for understanding institutional formation and stability, emphasizing rules, norms, and legitimacy in shaping organizational behavior. However, traditional New Institutionalism focuses primarily on the logic of existence, explaining how institutions are created and maintained, while overlooking their logic of survival and logic of performance under dynamic change.
This conceptual paper introduces Institutional Resilience Theory as a bridge linking New Institutionalism and Performance Regime Theory, revealing how institutions evolve from existence to performance. Institutional resilience—comprising learning, buffering, and adaptive capacities—enables institutions to sustain functionality under stress and transform stability into performance through feedback and interaction. The paper argues that performance represents a “resilient form of legitimacy,” thereby reinterpreting New Institutionalism from a dynamic perspective and extending its explanatory scope.
References
Ansell, C., & Trondal, J. (2018). Governing turbulence: Regulating in a dynamic environment. Oxford University Press.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2020). The coronavirus crisis—Crisis communication, meaning-making, and institutional resilience. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 912–919.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Duit, A. (2016). Resilience thinking: Lessons for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 364–380.
Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2021). Governance and institutional resilience: Adapting to climate change. Public Management Review, 23(4), 545–562.
Gherghina, S. (2023). Institutional resilience and democratic stability: Conceptual and empirical challenges. Governance, 36(3), 711–728.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
Hartmann, F., & Spicka, J. (2020). Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: The missing link between innovation and performance. Public Management Review, 22(10), 1573–1592.
Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2021). How performance management affects public service motivation: A multilevel study. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1128–1141.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.
Moynihan, D. P. (2011). Performance regimes and public management reform. In The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 137–156). Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
Nabatchi, T., & Sancino, A. (2023). Public value in governance networks: Collaborative performance and institutional learning. Public Administration, 101(4), 812–828.
Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutionalism redux: Historical institutionalism and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(2), 256–272.
Sancino, A., & Horner, L. (2024). Reimagining public value for complex governance networks. Public Administration Review, 84(1), 102–116.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2022). Performance management in the public sector (3rd ed.). Routledge.
