256 10: Conclusion: A Bright Future for Th eory?
theories of bureaucratic politics will have to adapt for such complexity. Th e
framework and tools for such an adaptation are in place. It will be up to future
public administration scholars to accept such complexity and the accompanying
political jumble.
Public Institutional Th eory
Institutional theory in public administration is concerned with the organization
and management of contained and bounded public institutions. Its explanatory
target covers the relationship among organizational structure, its associated rules
and norms, and the organizational process, behaviors, outcomes, and account-
ability of public agencies. In public administration, the term “institution” typ-
ically refers to a public organization that can invoke the authority of the state
to enforce its decisions. In this context, institutions are generically defi ned as
the social constructs of rules and norms that constrain individual and group be-
havior. Institutionalism also incorporates ideas of performance, outcomes, and
purposefulness.
Following this general conceptual orientation, the big themes of institutional
theory tend to focus on how structure and organization shape the behavior of
public actors, particularly how variation in structure aff ects decisionmaking, pro-
gram implementation, and outcomes. If there is such a thing as a general conclu-
sion from institutional research, it is this: Change an institution, alter its rules or
norms, and you change behavioral predispositions and agency outcomes.
Institutional theory is premised on the assumption that collective outcomes
and individual behavior are structured by institutions. Institutional theory en-
compasses several cross-disciplinary literatures, including branches in economics,
sociology, and political science. Th e contemporary tone and general orientation
of institutional theory in public administration were set by two key 1989 publica-
tions: James Q. Wilson’s classic Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and
Why Th ey Do It, and James G. March and Johan P. Olsen’s Rediscovering Institu-
tions. Th e key contribution of both these works was a convincing demonstration
of the limits of economic and market theory in explaining institutional behavior.
Although these scholars did not reject outright all the elements of economic and
market theory, they resurrected the traditional disciplinary theme of hierarchy
and graft ed on the important insights of scholarship on organizational culture. In
doing so, they created a more realistic portrayal of how public institutions shape
the interaction of individuals and organizations in their political, social, and eco-
nomic contexts.
Institutional theory in various forms guides several research literatures im-
portant in public administration. For example, institutional theory is of particular
importance in guiding scholarship on the decentralization of the state. Th is is
because institutional theory is not predicated on assumptions of sovereignty and
jurisdiction and thus continues to function as a useful way to organize thinking