12 February 2007Lien Verpoest - IIEB Institutional Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the CIS Lien Verpoest - 2nd PhD seminar 12 February 2007.

12 February 2007 Lien Verpoest - IIEB

Institutional Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the CIS

Lien Verpoest - 2nd PhD seminar12 February 2007

Goals doctoral seminar

• overview of chapters & contents

• account of fieldwork - pitfalls- useful insights- preliminary results

• feedback

Introduction: A Delineation of the Research

• General Background: Geopolitical situation in Slavic Core of CIS since 1991

• Geopolitical Pluralism

• my approach to theories and methods

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

• New Institutionalism • key variables• institutional change sociological institutionalism institutional isomorphism (> org analysis)

- Stage One

Stage OneStructuration & Institutional Definition of the

Organisational Field

1.structuration of

organisational field- clear delineation of organisational field-description of

structuration process(ch3-4)

2.emergence of centre-periphery structure-institutional definition of

peripheral institutions towards an organisational

field (ch5)

- Stage Two:

Institutional Isomorphism (ch6,7)• Origins and Patterns of

Institutional Change• Sources of Variation /

Heterogeneity in Institutional Change

Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology

• Comparative ‘Research Cycle’ (Skocpol & Somers)

• Institutional Change and Foreign Policy Organizational Process Model (Graham Allison 1971)

• focus formal/informal institutions

• Introduction of the specific cases:

– Choice of Countries

– Choice of Institutions

• Methods and Data Collection

PART II Structuration and Institutional Definition (Stage one)

• Organisational Field as Analytical Construct

• Process of structuration of the Organisational Field

Chapter 3: Structuration of Organisational Fields

structuration – collective definition of the organisational field

common interestcentralisation of

resources

‘Europe’ as an Organisational Field

Structuration of the Organisational Field

Common Interest

EU & CoE as complementary organisations

1) common values

2) concrete steps, projects & institutional mechanisms post-1991

3) complementarity of interests

Centralisation of Resources

enhanced economic cooperation - increased institutionalisation

Bureaucratisation Following Centralisation bureaucratisation elaborate institutional structure

The CIS Organisational Field

The Structuration of the Organisational Field:

Common Values & Interests damage control? Military, economic & institutional structures intertwined common values > common history

Centralisation of Resources intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms amendments increased integration

Chapter 4 Processes of Institutional Change

in the Slavic Core of the CIS

• Countries

• Domestic institutional development post-independence

• concept of critical junctures (Pierson 2000)

• Ukraine: Constitution 1996 (intertwined with institutional reform)

• Belarus: referenda 1995 &1996

• Russia: 1995 & 1996 parliamentary & presidential elections (institutional consolidation)

Chapter 5: Institutional Definition towards Organisational

Fields

1. Introduction domestic policy FP

2. External Relations after 1991

2.1. A Similar Start?

2.2. Critical Junctures and Foreign Policy: the mid-nineties

2.2.1. The Slavic Core in the mid-nineties: Differences and Similarities

critical junctures - ‘real’ FP orientations

initial assessment official documents & academic literature

2.2.2. Foreign policies compared

preliminary comparison FP orientations before analysing org characteristics

Stage OneStructuration & Institutional Definition of the Organisational Field

1.Collective definition of organisational

field- clear delineation of organisational field-description of structuration process

(ch3,4)

2.Emergence of centre-periphery structure-institutional definition of peripheral

institutions towards an organisational field -(ch5)

3. Institutional Definition towards the organisational fields

Testing organisational characteristics

3.1. increased interaction among organisations in the field 3.2. emergence of interorganisational structures of dominance

and coalition 3.3. increase in information load between organisations in the

field3.4. the development of a mutual awareness of being involved in

a common enterprise

fieldwork

Fieldwork: origins

• Triangulation

Official documents - academic literature - fieldwork

• exploratory interviews

- EU-Russia, EU-Ukraine & EU-Belarus Interparliamentary cooperation committee

- 2 aims

a) assessment cooperation committees b) testing org characteristics

- 2 insights

a) negative evaluationb) problems (Russia): enlargement, serious values gap

Fieldwork: Electronic Survey

Main objective survey:

- collecting data on institutions, foreign policy, & values perception- link institutional transformation & divergence between Eastern & Western

values perceptions?

Selection of respondents:

- academic communities, research institutes & think tanks in Russia, Belarus & Ukraine

- advantage : opinions from both centre and periphery of countries

wide range of respondents

completeness & validity

Fieldwork: Electronic Survey (2)

Design of the Survey

- 3 thematic groups: values, institutions, FP

- parallel (EVS, Eurobarometer)

- organisational characteristics = part 3 - types of questions

Language of the Survey

- state language &English - Russia: Ru, Eng- Ukraine: Ukr, Eng, Ru- Belarus: Bel, Ru, Eng

Fieldwork: Electronic Survey (3)

Survey sent

- Period June-Sept

- Reminder Oct-Nov

- 613 sent (746: 113 addresses didn’t work & 20 NR = 613)

- 129 responded

Problems

- collection mail addresses

- mail addresses that didn’t work

- Belarus: closed society

Positives

- enthusiastic reactions poignant issues

- Respondents from center & periphery geographical diversity

- Interesting results

Part 1: ValuesQuestion 1.3.

Do you ever think of yourself as a European?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Often 48,8 75,6

Sometimes 31,7 14,6

Rarely 14,6 9,8

Never 4,9 0,0

Russia Ukraine

Question 1.7.

What political system is most suitable for your country?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

Russia 20,7 35,4 2,4 41,5

Ukraine 7,3 65,9 0,0 26,8

Current systemWestern type democracy

Soviet system Other

Part 2: InstitutionsQuestion 2.2.

RUSSIA

How much confidence do you have in the following institutions?

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0

Parliament

President

Justice system

Presidential administration

Prime minister

Armed forces

Police

Press

CIS

Council of Europe

OSCE

EU

None at all

Not very much

Some

Quite a lot

Great deal

How much confidence do you have in the following institutions?

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0

Parliament

President

Justice system

Presidentialadministration

Prime minister

Armed forces

Police

Press

CIS

Council of Europe

OSCE

EU

None at all

Not very much

Some

Quite a lot

Great deal

UKRAINE

Question 2.3.

Russia

How influential do you consider these institutions in determining foreign policy?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,050,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

President Ministry ofForeign Affairs

Parliament Other

Very influential

Rather influential

A bit influential

Not really influential

Not influential at all

Ukraine

How influential do you consider these institutions in determining foreign policy?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

President Ministry ofForeign Affairs

Parliament Other

Very influential

Rather influential

A bit influential

Not really influential

Not influential at all

Question 2.6.

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

Institutional reforms havetaken place effectively over

the past 15 years

Institutional reforms shouldbe consistently based on thewestern democratic model

The institutional reforms ofthe last 15 years have

influenced governance inRussia

The market economies ofwestern European countriesshoud serve as an example

for domestic reforms

Agree strongly

Agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Disagree

Disagree strongly

0,05,0

10,015,020,025,030,035,040,045,050,0

Institutional reforms havetaken place effectively over

the past 15 years

Institutinional reforms shouldbe consistently based on thewestern democratic model

The institutional reforms ofthe last 15 years have

influenced governance inUkraine

The market economies ofwestern European countriesshoud serve as an example

for domestic reforms

Agree strongly

Agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Disagree

Disagree strongly

Part 3: Foreign Policy Question 3.3.

When do you think cooperation with ... was best?

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

In the early 90's 0,0 41,5

In the mid 90's 7,3 29,3

At the end of the 90's 9,8 19,5

Now 82,9 9,8

EU CIS

Russia

When do you think cooperation with ... was best?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

In the early 90's 13,4 28,0

In the mid 90's 19,5 23,2

At the end of the 90's 15,9 15,9

Now 51,2 32,9

EU CIS

Ukraine

Question 3.7.

How would you label relations with these organisations?

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

Common project

Tit-for-tat situation

Common project 7,3 8,5 3,7 3,7 7,3

11,0 9,8 6,1 7,3 13,418,3 22,0 17,1 12,2 22,026,8 26,8 31,7 26,8 23,217,1 13,4 19,5 15,9 17,114,6 14,6 15,9 20,7 12,2

Tit-for-tat situation 4,9 4,9 6,1 13,4 4,9

EU CISCouncil of

EuropeOSCE

Belarus-Russia Union

How would you label relations with these organisations?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0Common project

Tit-for-tat situation

Common project 14,6 2,4 14,6 12,2 2,4

7,3 0,0 19,5 14,6 17,112,2 7,3 26,8 41,5 29,343,9 17,1 29,3 17,1 26,812,2 26,8 4,9 9,8 17,17,3 26,8 4,9 4,9 4,9

Tit-for-tat situation 2,4 19,5 0,0 0,0 0,0

EU CISCouncil of

EuropeOSCE GUUAM

Russia Ukraine

PART III - Institutional Isomorphism (Stage two)

Chapter 6 • Intertwined ch 5

• Explaining types of isomorphism based on data collected in part II

Chapter 7

• reasons behind institutional change causal mechanisms

• Explaining variations in institutional change

Path dependence: comparing historical processes

Creation of institutions & ‘critical junctures’

Conclusion