Week 1
Schmidt, A., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Management strategies in
response to an institutional crisis: The case of earthquakes in the Netherlands. Public
Administration, 96(3), 513-527.
● Focuses on the management strategies in response to an institutional crisis in the Netherlands
caused by earthquakes.
● The study examines the role of public administration in responding to the crisis and the
strategies the government and organisations employed to mitigate the impact of the
earthquakes.
● The authors argue that earthquakes represent a significant institutional crisis because they
challenge the existing norms and beliefs that shape the behaviour of organisations and
individuals. They also disrupt the formal rules and regulations that govern behaviour within an
institution.
● The authors found that effective crisis management strategies require coordination between
different actors, including government agencies, emergency services, and local communities.
● The article also highlights the importance of preparedness and contingency planning to
minimise the damage and disruptions caused by earthquakes.
● The study provides insights into the challenges of crisis management and the importance of
clear communication and collaboration between organisations and agencies to ensure adequate
response and recovery efforts.
● The study is based on a qualitative analysis of interviews with organisations affected by
earthquakes. The authors find that organisations employed various management strategies in
response to the institutional crisis, including changes to organisational structures, the creation
of new institutions, and the adoption of new norms and values.
● The authors conclude that effective management strategies in response to an institutional crisis
require a combination of changes to the formal and informal aspects of the institution.
Guala, F. (2016). Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living
Together. Princeton University Press.
● The author argues that institutions are fundamental to our understanding of social life and play
a crucial role in shaping human behaviour and our understanding of the world.
● He defines institutions as a set of rules, norms, and practices that regulate social
interactions and provides a framework for cooperation and coordination among
individuals.
● Institutions are not fixed and unchanging but constantly evolving and adapting to changing
social and economic conditions.
● Institutions shape our behaviour and beliefs while also being shaped by our beliefs and
behaviours.
● Better understanding of institutions is critical for solving many complex social, economic, and
political problems facing modern societies.
Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations (2nd ed.) SAGE. (Read Chapter 3 -
Three Pillars of Institution, pp. 47-70).
- The three pillars of institutions are the three main elements that makeup institutions:
regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive.
, - The regulative pillar refers to the formal rules, laws, and regulations governing an institution’s
behaviour.
- The normative pillar refers to the informal rules and expectations that guide behaviour within
an institution.
- The cultural-cognitive pillar refers to the shared beliefs, values, and understandings that shape
how people think about the world and their place within it.
- Scott argues that these three pillars of institutions work together to create a system of norms
and beliefs that influence the behaviour of individuals within organisations.
- A deep understanding of the three pillars can help us better understand how institutions shape
organisational behaviour and how organisations, in turn, shape institutions.
Lecture notes
● Institutions are everywhere
● Institutions connote stability but are subject to change processes both incremental and
discontinuous (Scott, p.48)
o This speaks to Guala’s distinction between a rule versus equilibrium approach
▪ Rules: provide stability, reduce uncertainty, govern expectations, change
incrementally, subject to erosion
▪ Equilibria: can be overturned, when deviation reaches a tipping point, we see
disruption/discontinuity, big shifts, revolutionary change
● What are Institutions? (Scott, p.48)
o Social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience
▪ Composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that,
together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and
meaning to social life
▪ Transmitted by various types of carries, including symbolic systems,
relational systems, routines and artefacts
▪ Operating at multiple levels of jurisdiction, from the global system to
localised interpersonal relationships.
● Balance between preservation and responsiveness (Boin, p.51)
o Back to Selznick’s institutions – which are fundamentally different from organisations
also in terms of resilience and change
o An organisation
▪ Is nothing more or less than a formal association of individuals whose efforts
are more or less purposefully related to the attainment of some formulated
goal
▪ Can be terminated as soon as the goal is accomplished or whenever
powerholders feel the organization is no longer any use
▪ ‘refers to an expendable tool, a rational instrument engineered to do a job’
(Selznick, 1957:5)
● Public organisations do not compete for consumers and their purchasing power
o They compete for:
▪ A share of a finite budget
▪ Public legitimacy (they need to be perceived as helpful, valuable,
indispensable, etc.)
▪ Support by democratic representatives
, ▪ Positive attention or positive press
▪ A good reputation
● Scott (Institutions as norms, rules): three pillars
Scott, p.52 Pillar
Regulative Normative Cultural- cognitive
Basis of Experience Social obligation Taken for granted
compliance
Basis of Order Regulative rules Binding expectations Constructive schemes
Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Indicators Rules, laws, Certification, Common beliefs shared logic
sanctions accreditation
Base of Integrity Regally sanctions Morally governed Comprehensible,
recognisable, culturally
supportive
Groningen gas exploitation and earthquakes
● By the 2000s, NL was dependent on gas exploration
● Commitments to and by the companies that have committed to the exploitation of gas
● There were earthquakes that increased in frequency and severity peaking in 2013.
● From the 1990s, claimed no causal link between gas exploitation and earthquakes
● Ring of power
o Institutions explain why every policymaker kept seeing gas exploitation as a good
thing
o To help companies that wanted to invest in gas exploitation, much power was given to
them by the government, and the ministry of economic affairs
o No institution was in charge of the safety of Groningen residents
● Case example: Groningen Gas Exploitation and Earthquakes
o Timeline
▪ 1950s: discovery, euphoria and: pressure to fully exploit before the end of the
century
▪ 1960s: ‘the making of’: NL became fully gas-dependent, major infrastructure
investments, contracts
▪ 1970s: soaring revenues, financing our welfare state
▪ 1980s: soaring revenues, complaints, compensating for major economic
decline, first links with earthquakes
▪ 1990s: more earthquakes, more complaints, more research, damage claims
▪ 2000s: same
▪ 2010s: Regulatory authority warns, largest earthquake (Huizinge, 2012),
report Safety Board
▪ 2020s: parliamentary inquiry
▪ 2030s: no more gas exploitation in Groningen?
Schmidt, A., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Management strategies in
response to an institutional crisis: The case of earthquakes in the Netherlands. Public
Administration, 96(3), 513-527.
● Focuses on the management strategies in response to an institutional crisis in the Netherlands
caused by earthquakes.
● The study examines the role of public administration in responding to the crisis and the
strategies the government and organisations employed to mitigate the impact of the
earthquakes.
● The authors argue that earthquakes represent a significant institutional crisis because they
challenge the existing norms and beliefs that shape the behaviour of organisations and
individuals. They also disrupt the formal rules and regulations that govern behaviour within an
institution.
● The authors found that effective crisis management strategies require coordination between
different actors, including government agencies, emergency services, and local communities.
● The article also highlights the importance of preparedness and contingency planning to
minimise the damage and disruptions caused by earthquakes.
● The study provides insights into the challenges of crisis management and the importance of
clear communication and collaboration between organisations and agencies to ensure adequate
response and recovery efforts.
● The study is based on a qualitative analysis of interviews with organisations affected by
earthquakes. The authors find that organisations employed various management strategies in
response to the institutional crisis, including changes to organisational structures, the creation
of new institutions, and the adoption of new norms and values.
● The authors conclude that effective management strategies in response to an institutional crisis
require a combination of changes to the formal and informal aspects of the institution.
Guala, F. (2016). Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living
Together. Princeton University Press.
● The author argues that institutions are fundamental to our understanding of social life and play
a crucial role in shaping human behaviour and our understanding of the world.
● He defines institutions as a set of rules, norms, and practices that regulate social
interactions and provides a framework for cooperation and coordination among
individuals.
● Institutions are not fixed and unchanging but constantly evolving and adapting to changing
social and economic conditions.
● Institutions shape our behaviour and beliefs while also being shaped by our beliefs and
behaviours.
● Better understanding of institutions is critical for solving many complex social, economic, and
political problems facing modern societies.
Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations (2nd ed.) SAGE. (Read Chapter 3 -
Three Pillars of Institution, pp. 47-70).
- The three pillars of institutions are the three main elements that makeup institutions:
regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive.
, - The regulative pillar refers to the formal rules, laws, and regulations governing an institution’s
behaviour.
- The normative pillar refers to the informal rules and expectations that guide behaviour within
an institution.
- The cultural-cognitive pillar refers to the shared beliefs, values, and understandings that shape
how people think about the world and their place within it.
- Scott argues that these three pillars of institutions work together to create a system of norms
and beliefs that influence the behaviour of individuals within organisations.
- A deep understanding of the three pillars can help us better understand how institutions shape
organisational behaviour and how organisations, in turn, shape institutions.
Lecture notes
● Institutions are everywhere
● Institutions connote stability but are subject to change processes both incremental and
discontinuous (Scott, p.48)
o This speaks to Guala’s distinction between a rule versus equilibrium approach
▪ Rules: provide stability, reduce uncertainty, govern expectations, change
incrementally, subject to erosion
▪ Equilibria: can be overturned, when deviation reaches a tipping point, we see
disruption/discontinuity, big shifts, revolutionary change
● What are Institutions? (Scott, p.48)
o Social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience
▪ Composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that,
together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and
meaning to social life
▪ Transmitted by various types of carries, including symbolic systems,
relational systems, routines and artefacts
▪ Operating at multiple levels of jurisdiction, from the global system to
localised interpersonal relationships.
● Balance between preservation and responsiveness (Boin, p.51)
o Back to Selznick’s institutions – which are fundamentally different from organisations
also in terms of resilience and change
o An organisation
▪ Is nothing more or less than a formal association of individuals whose efforts
are more or less purposefully related to the attainment of some formulated
goal
▪ Can be terminated as soon as the goal is accomplished or whenever
powerholders feel the organization is no longer any use
▪ ‘refers to an expendable tool, a rational instrument engineered to do a job’
(Selznick, 1957:5)
● Public organisations do not compete for consumers and their purchasing power
o They compete for:
▪ A share of a finite budget
▪ Public legitimacy (they need to be perceived as helpful, valuable,
indispensable, etc.)
▪ Support by democratic representatives
, ▪ Positive attention or positive press
▪ A good reputation
● Scott (Institutions as norms, rules): three pillars
Scott, p.52 Pillar
Regulative Normative Cultural- cognitive
Basis of Experience Social obligation Taken for granted
compliance
Basis of Order Regulative rules Binding expectations Constructive schemes
Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Indicators Rules, laws, Certification, Common beliefs shared logic
sanctions accreditation
Base of Integrity Regally sanctions Morally governed Comprehensible,
recognisable, culturally
supportive
Groningen gas exploitation and earthquakes
● By the 2000s, NL was dependent on gas exploration
● Commitments to and by the companies that have committed to the exploitation of gas
● There were earthquakes that increased in frequency and severity peaking in 2013.
● From the 1990s, claimed no causal link between gas exploitation and earthquakes
● Ring of power
o Institutions explain why every policymaker kept seeing gas exploitation as a good
thing
o To help companies that wanted to invest in gas exploitation, much power was given to
them by the government, and the ministry of economic affairs
o No institution was in charge of the safety of Groningen residents
● Case example: Groningen Gas Exploitation and Earthquakes
o Timeline
▪ 1950s: discovery, euphoria and: pressure to fully exploit before the end of the
century
▪ 1960s: ‘the making of’: NL became fully gas-dependent, major infrastructure
investments, contracts
▪ 1970s: soaring revenues, financing our welfare state
▪ 1980s: soaring revenues, complaints, compensating for major economic
decline, first links with earthquakes
▪ 1990s: more earthquakes, more complaints, more research, damage claims
▪ 2000s: same
▪ 2010s: Regulatory authority warns, largest earthquake (Huizinge, 2012),
report Safety Board
▪ 2020s: parliamentary inquiry
▪ 2030s: no more gas exploitation in Groningen?
