Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
MODELS OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
Henry (1992:51-64) divides institutional theory into the following three models, namely the closed model, the open model and the synthesis model. Each of the models has its own features, which are to some extent different and in other cases similar.
The closed model of institutions has the following features as identified by Henry (1992:51): tasks are routine and occur in stable conditions, they are specialised and they are prescriptive in terms of the way tasks are done; conflict in a closed model institution comes from the top of the institution and the institution is perceived as a hierarchic structure; responsibility is emphasised with a focus on the institutional subunit; interaction in the institution is vertical and the style of interaction is informed by clear super- ordinate and subordinate relationships; and loyalty to the super-ordinate is often emphasised at the expense of performance.
In comparison the open model of institutions has the following features (Henry, 1992:54): tasks are non-routine and occur in unstable conditions; common tasks are informed by specialised knowledge and they are aimed at getting the task done; conflict in the open model of institution comes from interaction with peers and the institution is perceived as a network structure; responsibility is emphasised in the context that all institutional members contribute to all institutional problems; interaction between people in the institution is vertical and horizontal and the style of interaction is informed by advice to accomplish certain outputs; and performance of tasks is often emphasised at the expense of obedience to the super-ordinate.
Henry (1992:60-62) describes the following differences and similarities of the two models: the first difference involves the assumptions about the institutional environment. The closed model assumes a stable, routine environment. The open model assumes an unstable, non-routine environment. Both models, however, assume that the institution will take action to thrive and adapt to survive. In this regard, the closed-model institutions often have to adopt to meet demands from an unstable environment. Conversely, open-model institutions have to adapt to meet demands to determine some structure and routine relative to their environment. Thus, whether open or closed, institutions must change as their environments change. Another difference involves the assumptions about the nature of human beings. The closed model assumes that people do not like to work, needs supervision, are motivated by threat or punishment and cannot contribute to the solution of institutional problems. The open model assumes that people like to work, exercise self-control and are motivated by social and ego rewards and can contribute to the solution of institutional problems. In this regard, it is clear that institutions predicated on any one of the two models will attract people that find a specific model appealing.
The essence of the third model, the synthesis model, is that an institution often operates as an open model, in an uncertain environment with a collection of people that each has his/her own goals. These institutions, however, introduce routine and rationalise internal work procedures and external relationships whenever possible (Henry, 1992:64).
To conclude, institutions are often required to adapt to a changing environment if they want to survive and thrive. This is true whether the institution is based on the closed, open or synthesis model of institutions. To adapt to a changing environment is difficult because it involves human complexities, are often characterised by formal and informal relationships and are integrated into a
larger social system, which requires sustained co-operative arrangements.
STATE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Institutions are often evaluated by society for effectiveness, efficiency or relevance depending on the nature of the institutions. Henry (1992; 68-70) differentiates between the following institutional tests. The effectiveness test assesses an institution’s ability to fulfil and complete its mandate without taking into account how many resources are consumed to achieve the mandate. The efficiency test assesses an institution’s ability to fulfil its mandate while using the fewest resources possible. The social test assesses an institution’s ability to remain relevant and useful in achieving specific social gaols. Both the efficiency and social tests are useful tools that society can use to evaluate state institutions.
Evaluations of institutions often identify the need for change. Institutional development is the process of planned institutional change that is deep and longlasting and responds to the internal and external environmental dynamics. The aim of these developments is to increase institutional effectiveness and efficiencies by integrating individual growth with institutional goals (Shafritz and
Russell, 2005:260-261).
Institutional change must be planned in advance and implemented gradually if it is to be successful. It requires top management support and commitment. It also needs a specific strategy such as institutional diagnosis, process consultation, team building and conflict management (Shafritz and Russell, 2005:261).
Massamba, Kariuki and Ndegwa (2004:34) confirm the importance of leadership for institutional development because institutional reform needs to be supported by changing behaviour of top management. They also advise that state institutional change is often slow due to its inherent conservatism and because change is often a function of its legal mandate.
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The need for developing countries to develop its institutional capacity in a globalised economy offers an opportunity for the development of creative responses (Massamba, Kariuki and Ndegwa, 2004:30), which meet the needs of their societies and take into account regional and national interest. Maur (2008:2) highlights the fact that institutional development should be approached in a
holistic manner in order to seek regional solutions to deal with market failures. Approaching regional institutional development in a holistic manner in Africa could in theory mean that institutional capacity that is in the regional interest can be provided by any country in Africa. This, however, will require co-ordination between countries in order to ensure a fair distribution of the institutional capacity between countries. It could also mean that countries with stronger institutional capacity provide assistance to countries with weaker capacity. Lastly, it could mean that countries network increasingly and that this provides improved institutional capacity through the sum of the efforts of the participating countries (Maur, 2008:15).
Chapter 1: Introductory perspectives on policy and state institutional reform on the African continent
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Doing business in Africa
1.3 Policy on reform in Africa
1.3.1 Structural reform
1.3.2 Capacity reform
1.3.3 Service delivery reform
1.3.4 African peer review mechaism
1.4 State institutional capacity in Africa
1.5 Public policy reform and its impact on state institutions
1.6 Technical regulatory reform
1.7 African economic strategies that are relevant to technical infrastructure reform
1.8 Compliance cost for African entrepreneurs
1.9 Technical infrastructure institutional capacity to support African trade
1.10 Conclusion
Chapter 2: Research Methodolog
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The research problem
2.3 The use of research
2.4 Types of research approaches
2.5 Qualitative research design
2.5.1 Content analysis method
2.5.2 Grounded theory study method
2.5.3 Phenomenological study method
2.5.4 Ethnography study method
2.5.5 Case study method
2.6 Qualitative research sources
2.7 Need for the study
2.8 Nature of the study
2.9 The problem statement and the objectives of the study
2.9.1 The research questions
2.10 Methodology
2.11 Limitations on the scope of the study
2.12 Conclusion
Chapter 3: A review of the relevant literature on public administration
3.1 Introduction
3.2. The boundaries of Public Administration
3.3 Public Administration
3.2.1 The generic functions of Public Administration
3.2.1 (a) Policy-making
3.2.1 (b) Organising
3.2.1 (c) Staffing
3.1.2 (d) Directing and co-ordinating
3.1.2 (e) Reporting
3.1.2 (f) Budgeting
3.2.2 The historical development of Public Administration
3.2.3 Summary paragraph
3.4 Understanding public policy
3.5 Policy types and policy levels
3.6 Public policy-making models
3.6.1 The rational comprehensive model
3.6.2 The incrementalist model
3.6.3 The mixed scanning model
3.7 Setting policy agendas
3.8 Policy-making processes
3.7.2 External factors
3.9 Models for analysing policy-making processes
3.9.1 The elite/mass model
3.9.2 The group model
3.9.3. The institutional model
3.9.4 The systems model
3.11 Reasons for and advantages of public policy analysis
3.12 The public policy analysis process
3.12.1 Formulation
3.12.2 Search
3.12.3 Forecasting
3.12.4 Modelling
3.12.5 Synthesis
3.13 Policy implementation
3.14 Improving public policy in developed and developing countries
3.15 Public policy in Africa
3.16 State institutions
3.17 Models of institutional theory
3.18 State institutional development
3.19 Institutional development in developing countries
3.20 Institutional development in Africa
3.21 Conclusion
Chapter 4: A case study review of international and regional trends in technical regulatory refor
4.1 Introduction
4.2 International technical regulatory reform
4.2.1 The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trad
4.2.2 Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
4.2.3 Tri annual reviews of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trad
4.2.4 The relationship between standards and technical regulations
4.2.5 Influencing standards development and technical regulations
4.2.6 Technical regulations from country to country
4.2.7 Equivalence of national standards
4.2.8 More international standards for technical regulations
4.2.9 Conformity assessment requirements for technical regulations and standards
4.2.9 (a) Quality management systems
4.2.9 (b) Product certification
4.2.9 (c)Testing reports
4.2 9 (d) Inspections
4.3 Regional technical regulatory reform
4.4 Internationally recognised institutions
4.5 Institutional capacity in Southern Africa
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 5: An analysis of technical regulatory reform and state institutional capacity: Implications for an African technical regulatory framework
Chapter 6: Recommendations for an African policy approach to technical regulatory reform
References
