Title of Dissertation: national renewable energy policy

Global Environmental 
Politics
(2014):10-35.

---

42 
Institutional theory and institutional change: Theoretical framework for Analysis 1 and 
Analysis 2 
Institutional theory suggests that organizational actions are the choices among 
limited options, which are determined by specific environmental conditions rather than a 
pure rational choice of the organization. In other words, organizational choices are 
shaped by institutional environments around an organization, which is called an 
organizational field. An organizational field is defined as “organizations in the aggregate, 
constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product 
consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar service or 
products”.
46
Organizational fields are the areas for institutional life; organizations “gather 
and frame their actions vis-a-vis one another”.
47
Central to institutional theory is the preference for certainty of organizations.
48
Organizations attempt to avoid uncertainty for their survival, which is the goal of their 
organizational actions.
49
As the goal is survival rather than profit maximization, internal 
elements of organizations are legitimated by external factors than in terms of efficiency.
50
For organizations, one of the ways to avoid uncertainty is to imitate other organizations 
46
DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter W. Powell. "The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality 
and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields." 
American Sociological Review
48, no. 2 (1983): 147-160.
47
Fligstein, Neil. "Social skill and the theory of fields." 
Sociological Theory
19, no. 2 
(2001): 105-125.
48
DiMaggio, P. J. "Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory”, in 
Institutional Patterns 
and Organizations: Culture and Environment
, ed. Lynne G Zucker (MA: Ballinger, 
1988). 3-22. 
49
Fligstein, Neil. "Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market 
institutions." 
American Sociological Review
(1996): 656-673.
50
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. "Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure 
as myth and ceremony." 
American Journal of Sociology
(1977): 340-363.

---

43 
that are successful or legitimate. For this reason, the greater the uncertainty of a field, the 
greater institutional isomorphism among organizations. 
The notion of isomorphism in institutional theory is criticized due to its failure to 
explain institutional change.
51
Although most firms imitate successful firms’ behaviors, 
some firms behave differently from other firms, or they attempt to change existing 
institutions. Lack of explanations for endogenous institutional changes have been 
regarded as core weakness of institutional theory.
“Old” institutionalism was reintroduced for some research to address this gap.
52
Old institutionalism focuses on conflicts of interests, institutional changes, and focal 
organizations, while “new” institutionalism is interested in homogeneity, persistence, and 
fields. Hoffman showed how organizational fields and institutions “coevolve” by using 
the concept of change in old institutionalism; although the options of individual actions 
are limited by organizational fields, these options evolve with the fields.
53
Greenwood 
and Hinings examined the responses of organizations to institutional pressures as a 
51
Hirsch, Paul M., and Michael Lounsbury. "Ending the family quarrel toward a 
reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms."