OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND THE PERSISTENCE OF THE PRESENT

INTERNATIONAL ORDER

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

vitor.fernandes60@gmail.com

Assistant Professor at the Lusíada University (Portugal) and Visiting Scholar at the University of

Cambridge (Wolfson College and, previously, at the Department of Politics and International

Studies)

Abstract

International orders reflect the settled arrangements that define relations between states in

certain moments in history. Order breaks down when the adopted set of organizational

principles that define roles and the terms of those relations cease to operate. International

organizations are a central feature of the current order and an important source of legitimacy.

This article extracts a set of ideas derived from the new sociological institutionalism literature

in organizational analysis and sets out an argument showing their possible implications for

the present order. I argue that there are certain organizational features related to institutional

isomorphism that may well support the persistence and maintenance of the current

international order. The argument is based on the homogeneity of practices and arrangements

found in different institutions and organizations. The persistence of those practices and their

reproduction in structures are to some extent self-sustaining and may provide additional

support to the idea that the current American-led international order may last longer than is

often thought while allowing for changes in the distribution of power.

Keywords

International Organization; New Institutionalism; Institutional Isomorphism; Organizational

Field; International Order

How to cite this article

Fernandes, Vítor Ramon (2019). "Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present

international order". JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, N.º 1, May-

October 2019. Consulted [online] on the date of the last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-

7251.10.1.1

Article received on May 27, 2018 and accepted for publication on February 02, 2019

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND THE PERSISTENCE OF THE PRESENT

INTERNATIONAL ORDER

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

Introduction

The current international order

is considered to be changing. There are power shifts

taking place and the question regarding the nature of that change is a crucial one.

Critically, it matters whether the power transitions that are taking place will lead to a

bipolar order, or even to a multipolar one. But, in addition, it will be important to see

whether there will be major changes in the operating nature of that order, or whether it

will retain many of its main features, namely with respect to the role and importance of

international organizations.

Taking stock of the importance that international organizations and other institutions

have had in the creation and maintenance of the current international order, the main

argument presented here is that there is also a set of ideas that arises from sociology

that may help sustain it. There are a number of organizational features pertaining to

organizational theory related to institutional isomorphism, in particular, that should be

drawn attention to given that they are likely to have an important influence regarding

the way that international organizations operate and which, as a result, may provide

significant support to the persistence of the current international order. These ideas

follow from work related to the new institutionalism

in organization theory and sociology

- the new sociological institutionalism.

This approach rejects rational-actor models and considers institutions as independent

variables in alternative to the more conventional approaches that take institutions as the

consequence of motives and actions based simply on rational behaviour (Powell and

DiMaggio, 1991). The new sociological institutionalism is the most influential theory in

recent decades that studies matters related to institutional development. It is based on

International order is considered to be the set of norms, rules and arrangement between states that guide

the interactions between them, and, in particular, how major powers interact between them and with other

states (see, for example, Ikenberry, 2001, 2014).

International organizations are defined here, essentially, as organizations that have representatives from

three or more states supporting a permanent secretariat and that are assigned to perform certain tasks in

order to achieve certain defined and common objectives. Defined in this sense, it only encompasses

international governmental organizations. However, although the focus of the analysis is centred on those,

much of what is argued here in this article also applies to other international organizations, namely,

nongovernmental organizations. On this matter, see for instance, Archer (2014).

As noted by Powell and DiMaggio (1991: 1): “there are many ‘new institutionalisms’”. Here, I will be

concerned with the New Institutionalism in organizational studies and sociology. Its characteristics will

become clearer as I proceed.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

arguments that differ quite significantly from the more common line of research

concerning the role and importance of international organizations, most notably in the

creation and maintenance of the current international order within liberal institutional

theory and regime theory. It is, nevertheless, complementary to it.

The remainder of the article unfolds as follows: In the first section, I present a brief

analysis of the current international order with a view to characterizing the overall context

of the main argument. Here, in addition to a number of general considerations about the

nature and stability of the present order – while also contextualizing some of the power

shifts that are taking place, most notably with the rise of China – I review the importance

that international organizations have had in that order until now. The second section lays

out a number of considerations on the nature of international organizations, drawing

attention to their organizing principles and elements as bureaucracies. Here, I point out

some of the most important features of international organizations as bureaucracies from

an organizational theory viewpoint in order to highlight their importance and relevance

in international politics. In this section, I also discuss the importance of power in the

context of international organizations. In the next section, I illustrate some of the most

well-known approaches that can be applied when studying organizations, in order to

contextalize the perspective that I will follow in presenting my main argument. Some of

the differences between these perspectives are also highlighted. The following section

presents the main arguments on institutional isomorphism based on the work of Meyer

and Rowan (1977), and DiMaggio and Powell (1983), given that they are essential to the

main argument. After that, I argue that the mechanisms identified as sources of

isomorphism, and indeed of some homogenization resulting from institutional

isomorphism, are likely to play an important role in the maintenance of the current

international order. The article ends with a conclusion of the main arguments.

The enduring stability of the current international order

A great deal has been written in the international relations literature about the role of

international organizations and other institutions in the present international order, most

notably, how they have been an essential part of the current order since the end of World

War II. One very important attribute has been to provide collective legitimacy. The latter

is very important, given that “Legitimacy is a property of a rule or rulemaking institution

which itself exerts a pull toward compliance on those addressed normatively because

those addressed believe that the rule or institutions has come into being and operates in

accordance with generally accepted principles of right process” (Franck, 1990: 24).

International orders reflect the settled arrangements that define relations between states

in certain moments in history. Order breaks down when the adopted set of organizational

principles that define roles and the terms of those relations cease to operate. Agreed-

upon rules and institutions limit state power, and international organizations are a central

feature of the current order as well as an important source of legitimacy (Ikenberry,

1998/99, 2001, 2014).

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has enjoyed unparalleled power

in the international system, with a level of power preponderance that no other state has

matched in modern history. For that reason, this order is characterized as unipolar. Time

will tell if, and when, we will return to a different kind of order, bipolar, as was the case

during the cold war or to a multipolar one as many predicted would occur soon after the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

end of the Soviet Union. However, so far this has not happened. It does, however, seem

likely that the United States and China will continue to be the two greatest powers in the

international system in the coming decades as China’s economy continues to grow at a

fast pace, possibly even surpassing the United States on a number of fronts and despite

still lagging very significantly in terms of military power.

It will be crucial to watch how the relationship between these two countries,

notwithstanding others, will unfold. Largely, it will also be about the relashionship

between China and the liberal Western order that emerged after World War II through

the leadership of the Unites States (Ikenberry, 2013). China still seems quite far away

from becoming the first power, or superpower, in the world.

It does not seem to wish to

lead the world in a missionary way either. Nevertheless, China will want to push its

interests forward and that will probably mean that world power will be shared between

the United States and China at some point in time. In this context, there is a possibility

that these countries succeed in finding ways to manage their differences and will be able

to develop the prospects for political, economic and security cooperation leading to peace

and stability in the international system. Furthermore, while China will likely want to

reform parts of the postwar international rules-based order overtime in order to better

suit its interest, this may occur without major changes in the way it operates.

Nevertheless, the possibility of conflict in the future exists if rivalries are not contained.

The diplomacy of Beijing has sometimes been considered challenging, somewhat

disturbing and often disrupting on several occasions (Christensen, 2011; Shambaugh,

2011). There is also some scepticism on what concerns the relationship between powerful

states and international organizations. In addition, powerful states also often bend many

of the international organizations norms to their will. Notwithstanding, membership of

these organizations and adherence to the norms that they embody can be used as a way

to demonstrate power and gain advantage. China will continue to try to limit and set

boundaries on the United States power and international organizations can be effective

institutions for that purpose.

All said, this order has also been relatively stable despite some significant shifts in the

global distribution of power that seem hard to deny and are still taking place.

This

stability seems due to a number of institutional factors, namely, a number of

“constitutional characteristics” (Ikenberry, winter 1998/1999: 45) that mitigate the

existing differences in power between states and their implications, thereby reducing the

need for states to balance. With its rules and norms, institutions are therefore a major

component of the international order, exhibiting what Ikenberry (winter 1998/1999: 46)

calls “increasing returns” characteristics. That may be considered relevant in the sense

that the more they become a part of the present international order, the more they help

maintain it and make it more difficult to overturn it. Furthermore, the current liberal

international order can be organized in different ways. It has evolved over time and can

Military power is a crucial element here, notably in terms of polarity. The considerable difference still existing

between the United States and China on this front is, from my perspective, considered essential for

characterizing the international system as unipolar.

It remains to be seen if it ever will.

As one anonymous referee pointed out to me, examples such as the creation of the Asian Infrastructure

Investment Bank – that is somewhat considered as a competitor of the World Bank – can be seen as

resulting from the inability of the latter to allow changes in the distribution of power. My argument differs

in the sense that I regard that situation as one possible circumstance of adjustment within the international

order to allow for changes in the distribution of power and maintain its main features and characteristics.

See also footnote 12 below.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

continue to evolve (Ikenberry, 2009). It can be more or less tied to the existing norms

and institutions, it can be more or less open, and more or less rule-based or

institutionalized.

The nature of international organizations

Irrespective of the issue that one considers in world politics, being it conflict, economic

or financial matters, humanitarian issues, environmental concerns, or any other, one is

bound to find international organizations involved. Their function is much more than just

executing international agreements between states. They shape the global international

order and, particularly since World War II, they are central to order building and its

maintenance. They often make authoritative decisions that have global reach. In many

situations, international organizations act as facilitators of policy coordination, as

mechanisms for managing and legitimizing the solutions to problems that managed

otherwise by independent states in an interdependent world, would simply remain

unsolved.

In essence, international organizations are bureaucracies, which continue to be the

privileged framework for organizing work in a complex world (Weber, 1947; Weber, Roth

and Wittich, 1978). Bureaucracies are considered to be the most efficient system of

organization and the most effective way to rationalize processes in the current world,

given some of the features that are associated with it, namely spheres of competence

defined within a division of labour with some form of hierarchy. In addition, the necessary

work and the pursuit of the defined objectives are carried out according to rules and

operating procedures, and irrespective of the people working there in a particular

moment, that is, they are impersonal. They allow an organization to respond more

effectively and predictably to demands. As such, bureaucracies are sets of rules that

define complex social tasks within a certain division of labour in the pursuit of certain

objectives.

Bureaucracies also affect the behaviour of others actors within the international system,

such as countries and other bureaucracies (Krasner, 1983; Keohane, 1984). They also

define and create rules that have an impact on the social world. Such an example would

be the case of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in the sense of creating rules for

managing balance-of-payments problems, or activities in the sense of institutionalized

procedures for solving specific problems or accomplishing certain tasks. Not least

important, bureaucratic culture tends to guide action, although it does not determine it,

in the sense that bureaucrats tend to share a similar view of the world because those

bureaucracies influence their interests and shape their views (Campbell, 1998;

Immergut, 1987; Swidler, 1986).

Another crucial theme related to international organizations is power.

Much can be said

about power and international organizations and, in that respect, it is important to

distinguish power in international organizations from the power of those organizations.

More specifically, one can think of power within organizations in the sense of the capacity

and the ability that members of those organizations have in the creation and functioning

of those organizations. The same can be said in terms of negotiating ability and agenda-

setting capability. However, here I wish to focus on the power of organizations. That is,

For a good discussion on power and international organizations see, for instance, Barkin (2013).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

the idea that these international organizations have independent power and one that is

non-military. That power can also be expressed in terms of influence within those

organizations, namely through agenda setting and the creation of procedures. An

example would be the United Nations, concerning international peace and security. This

power arises from moral authority, which provides the specific organization with

legitimacy to act in a depoliticized manner and from an imparcial standpoint. However,

it can also be used to push forward certain particular political positions and agendas.

The other source of power in international organizations is the production and control of

information. Often, this authoritative power is related to the ability to make use of

“epistemic communities” (Haas, 1992: 3), which allows organizations to present

themselves as depoliticized and to emphasize an objective point of view with regard to

knowledge. Again, a good example of this would be the IMF with respect to some claim

regarding monetary policy prescriptions, but many other organizations can also provide

similar examples. It is because bureaucrats possess information that others do not or,

alternatively, because they can influence what information other actors should collect

and reveal that they can increase their control over outcomes. In addition, bureaucratic

power can include the ability to transform information into knowledge, giving it meaning,

which can also have an effect in shaping social reality. All this provides a way of

establishing rules and norms that international organizations wish to spread as models

of good and adequate behaviour (Finnemore, 1996; Katzenstein, 1996; Legro, 1997).

One of the functions of international organizations is considered to be the creation,

spreading and enforcement of values and norms that are supposed to define what

constitutes the acceptable and legitimate state behaviour.

Different approaches to study international organizations

Traditionally, international organizations have been studied from an institutional

perspective (Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986). From this perspective, which is a static one

and does not allow understanding many of the changes that occur in these institutions,

the way to proceed is generally through the study of their formal structures, organizing

principles and hierarchies, which enables understanding what a specific organization can

and cannot do. For instance, it would be impossible to understand the actions and politics

of the United Nations without knowing how the veto power of the five permanent

members of the Security Council works. The same can be said for the lending procedures

of the IMF or the World Bank without being familiar with voting procedures. In addition,

it is important to take into consideration that these organizations have both

administrative employees and political appointees. A key distinction should be made

here, given that the primary loyalty of the former is towards the organization and its

goals whereas the primary loyalty of the latter is towards their respective governments.

This has important implications for international governmental organizations.

Funcionalist and neofunctionalist approaches attempt to deal with the fact that

international organizations change and evolve over time as new demands appear and

become more international fuelled by increased cooperation. The difference between the

former and the latter is that the latter also attempts to account for political demands and

integration processes in addition to technical ones (Barkin, 2013: 29-40). Some

funcionalist perspectives consider that international organizations exist due to the

functions they perform, in the sense that states create them to try and overcome

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

problems and difficulties that otherwise would not be possible, or simply too costly. Their

attention tends to focus on issues related to transaction costs, incomplete information

and other barriers that states try to overcome, but, in essence, they do not account for

a more independent role by international organizations, one that allows the creation of

independent agendas.

Notwithstanding, it is worth noting that funcionalist analysis also leaves open other

important dimensions that have become increasingly important over the recent years,

and particularly in the current international environment and with the current U.S.

administration. Most notably, a number of international organizations, such as the United

Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the UNESCO, among others, have become a

battleground for states to operate in order to safeguard their interests within world

politics, reflecting the power shifts that are occurring.

Although there is a risk of this

situation endangering the maintenance of the current international order in time,

particularly if it persists, it does not undermine the correctness of my main argument.

The predominant approach for analysing international organizations in the international

politics’ realm is, in all probability, regime analysis.

According to this approach,

international organizations are considered to be formal structures that “can be defined

as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures

around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations”

(Krasner, 1983: 2). As such, they also often lead to the creation of institutions, and some

of which are international organizations that promote cooperation (Krasner, 1983;

Keohane, 1984; Young, 1982, 1986). Some authors even argue that a regime always

exists when there is a regular pattern of behaviour that is sustainable for a significant

length of time (Puchala and Hopkins, 1982). In this sense, regimes and behaviour are

closely linked. In turn, this may help maintain the current order. However, a crucial idea

in this approach is that international organizations have no agency. Their role is the usual

image of international organizations seen as instruments that states use to achieve their

own goals (Archer, 2014: 117).

Significantly, and differently from what is generally considered in regime theory, several

international relations authors, some of whom with a constructivist leaning, have

disputed the value of the rational actor’s approach to the study of institutions. They tend

to adopt a more process-oriented perspective, whereby institutions constitute actors

(states) but also constrain them, and which leads policy-makers to take into

consideration norms and rules in their decision-making processes (Ruggie, 1982;

Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986; Krasner 1988; Keohane, 1988). From their perspective,

international organizations promote norm dissemination because of the focus on trying

to generate consensus through multilateralism. According to Acharya (2006: 113)

“Without multilateralism, the norms of sovereignty would not have become so prominent

a feature of the post-war international order”. Operating according to international norms

leads to norm dissemination, where a norm can be identified as “a standard of

appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity” (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998:

891). Furthermore, it facilitates domestic approval for action like “international rules and

norms can affect national policy choices by operating through the domestic political

process (Cortell and Davis, 1996: 471). Moreover, norms matter and they have a real

I am grateful to one of the anonymous referees for pointing this out to me.

International regimes are generally considered to be multilateral agreements based on the notion that

international cooperation is possible and occurs.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

and relevant impact on the way states behave. This occurs either through ‘regulative’

effets, in the sense that they induce states to behave in a certain way, or in a

‘constitutive’ way, which means that they influence the preferences and interests of

states (Glanville, 2016: 186-187). Others argue that under certain restrictive conditions

of the failure of individual actions by states to secure Pareto-optimal outcomes,

international regimes may play an important role in the international system, despite its

anarchic nature (Stein, 1982; Jervis, 1982).

Notwithstanding the relevance of the different approaches to organizational analysis, the

focus here takes a different perspective, most notably from what is generally considered

in the positive theory of institutions in general. The argument here is more of a

sociological nature and does not necessarily follow a rational approach perspective.

is based on the new institutionalism literature in organizational analysis that considers

the homogeneity of practices and arrangements found in different institutions and

organizations. The persistence of those practices and their reproduction in structures are,

to a certain extent, self-sustaining. Nevertheless, most significantly, it also allows for

changes in the distribution of power within the international order.

This different approach is based on arguments of a particular type of new institutionalism,

whereby normal organizational structures reflect technical demands and resource

dependencies, but which are also shaped by institutional forces that include rational

myths, knowledge legitimated through the educational system, by the professions, and

the law. Organizations are deeply embedded in social and political environments. In

addition, these organizational practices and structures also reflect, or are responses to,

rules, beliefs, and conventions built into the wider environment. This perspective has a

clear sociological flavour that distinguishes it from the remaining ones.

Much of this is also related to the work of Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984) and Bourdieu

and Wacquant (1992), which follows a reflexive epistemology and a relational ontology

that builds on the notion of ‘habitus’ and fields. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus consists of

a system of dispositions that originate in social structures but that are so deeply

internalized by actors that they generate behaviour even after the original structural

conditions have changed (Swartz, 1997, particularly p. 101). Bourdieu’s notions of

fields

and symbolic capital deepen our understanding of the network not only as a

system of knowledge flows – an instrument or means – but also as an important

phenomenon in its own right. The core idea here is that there are processes within

organization theory that are pertinent to the realm of international

institutions/organizations. These processes may be industrywide, national or

international in scope. It can also be considered that this perspective shares common

ground with the work of Wendt (1987, 1999).

The mechanisms of institutional isomorphism and homogenization

The central argument of the new sociological institutionalism lies on the processes of

institutional homogenization (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Tempel and Walgenbach,

2007). This follows, particularly, from the seminal contribution by Meyer and Rowan

(1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Meyer and Rowan argue that many formal

On this subject, see Powell and DiMaggio (1991, specially the introduction).

That is, networks or social arenas within which struggles occur for scarce resources.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

organizational structures come about as reflections of rational rules, with institutional

rules functioning as myths that organizations incorporate in their structure and mode of

operating, thereby also gaining legitimacy and stability. These authors argue that in order

to achieve legitimacy, organizations tend to construct stories about their actions and

activities. These stories are used as forms of symbolic reassurance to appease influencial

people or the public in general. The focus of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is on processes

of institutional homogenization, as well as similarity of practices and arrangements in

institutions. In essence, they developed the former theme further. Noting the remarkable

similarity of organizations in contemporary industrialized societies, they question why

organizations tend to become so similar to each other. Their central argument is that

organizations tend to incorporate practices, rules and procedures that have been

institutionalized and, in establishing how this process occurs, they highlight coercive,

mimetic, and normative processes of reproduction that lead to the isomorphic

organizational structures that generate increased legitimacy. Rather than because of

competition, or objectives connected to greater efficiency, organizations attempt to

obtain legitimacy in their environments in response to institutional pressures. This

homogeneity of practices leads to a constant and repetitive modus operandis in organized

life that may not be easily explained by a rational-actor approach.

According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983: 150): “Coercive isomorphism results from both

formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon

which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which

organizations function”. As such, coercive factors may also involve political pressures and

the force of the state, and, in some cases, even provide regulatory oversight and control,

namely through defining measures and procedures that need to be implemented by the

actors within those regulated industries. However, they can also arise from cultural

expectations. In the case of international organizations, one can also think of

isomorphism resulting from more subtle and indirect processes.

A second source of institutional isomorphism is mimesis (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983:

151). This mechanism works in the sense that actors are pulled towards certain types of

organizational models, and often times of work and behaviour, as they find those

solutions to be attractive to the problems they face, or favourable in terms of

advancement and recognition. This imitation of institutional templates legitimated in the

organizations’ field often makes up for a lack of rationality of the decision and, last but

not least, becomes a saveguard in the case of failure, as one is able to demonstrate

having done “what should have been done” or acted “according to correct procedures”.

This mimetic isomorphism can be seen as a response to uncertainty and as a source of

legitimation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983: 155; Kalev et al, 2006; Meyer and Jepperson,

2000; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991).

There is also isomorphism that results from normative factors that stem from the

influence of the professions and the role of education, many of them with great authority

and influence, as well as mimetic forces drawn on habitual and taken-for-granted

responses to circumstances of uncertainty. For instance, universities and other

professional training institutions diffuse standards across national boundaries and often

become “best practices” in any given profession. As such, they “are important centres

for the development of organizational norms among professional managers and their

staff” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983: 152). Moreover, they function as developers of

common practices and ways of thinking, thereby favouring professionals in organizations

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

at various levels to become alike in background, education and orientation. In many

organizations, notably international governmental organizations, there is often an

informal filtering in hiring. A similar situation occurs thoughout career progression that

also favours isomorphism. In this context, Kontinen and Onali (2017) provide a good

example of normative institutional isomorphism involving nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs).

The three mechanisms pointed above may not be easy to distinguish from each other

empirically. They are separate but can, and most likely do, operate simultaneously, with

their results not being easily identifiable.

That issue needs not detain us here. More

relevant is the notion that in order to survive, organizations need to convince the

environment in which they operate that they are legitimate and that, as a result, they

deserve to exist. Organizations have a need to perpetuate these symbolic and ceremonial

activities about their activities. They become part of the environment, that is, they

become institutionalized. No doubt, international organizations are not immune to these

influences, given that their respective bureaucracies also play a determinant role in the

way they operate. In addition, some of these processes are also likely to influence

political representatives in these organizations and the policies of the single states. The

persistence of those practices in these international (governmental) organizations and

taken-for-granted ways of proceeding in terms of behaviour and attitudes favours a

reproduction of structures that provides additional support to the maintenance of the

current international order.

Conclusion

New institutionalism has become a leading approach within organizational analysis,

particularly among north-american organizational sociologists. The main idea is that

organizations need to gain legitimacy in order to survive and, as a result, they tend to

create myths about themselves, often through symbolic and ceremonial activities. Those

become institutionalized and deeply embedded in social and political environments.

We are witnessing power transitions within the international system and it is not yet

obvious how this will affect the present international order, not least to what extent.

However, despite those power transitions, the fundamental nature of the current

international order needs not to change dramatically or, seen from a different

perspective, may change at a much slower pace. Many arguments from a liberal

institutionalist perspective have argued precisely that. However, in addition to that, the

argument presented here is that there are institutional processes and mechanisms that

have been studied in organizational theory within the New Institutional Theory that may

well provide additional support to the idea of an enduring order. These processes tend to

impact organizations in general and irrespective of the area of activity and socio-political

context, and, as such, they are likely to influence international organizations as well. The

end result may well be that they are likely to play a role in the maintenance of the current

For instance, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank surely displays elements of isomorphism with the

World Bank of both mimetic and normative factors at work, albeit not necessarily easy to identify. This

would result from the adoption of similar organizational structures, rules and rituals, as many of the existing

features in one organization are present in the other in terms of acting “according to correct and best

procedures”.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

international order which, consequently, may last longer than is often thought, while

accommodating some of the shifts in power that are taking place.

References

Acharya, A. (2006). Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change in World Politics.

In Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur and John Tirman (eds.) Multilateralism under

Challenge? Power, International Order, and Structural Change. Tokyo: UN University

Press.

Archer, C. (2014). International Organizations. London and New York: Routledge.

Barkin, S. (2013). International Organization: Theories and Institutions. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:

Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy,

Theory and Society, 27, 3: 377-409.

Christensen, T. J. (2011). The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s

Abrasive Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, 2 (March/April): 54-67.

Cortell, A. and Davis, J. (1996). How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic

Impact of International Rules and Norms. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, 4:

451-478.

DiMaggio, P. J. and Walter W. Powell. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional

isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological

Review, 48, 2: 147-160.

Finnemore, M. (1996). National Interests in International Society. Ithaca and London:

Cornell University Press.

Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.

International Organization, 52:4 (Autumn): 887-917.

Franck, T. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Glanville, L. (2016). Does R2P matter? Interpreting the impact of a norm. Cooperation

and Conflict, Vol. 51(2): 184-199.

Haas, P. (1992). Introduction. Epistemic Communities and International Policy

Coordination. International Organization, 46, 1: 1-35.

Ikenberry, G. J. (1998/99). Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Durability of

Western Order. International Security, 23, 3 (winter 1998/99): 43-78.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the

Rebuilding of Order after Major War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2009). Liberal Institutionalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal

World Order. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1: 71-87.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and the Transformation of

the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2013). The Rise of China, the United States, and the Future of the

Liberal International Order. In David Shambaugh (ed.) Tangled Titans. Plymouth, UK:

Rowman & Littlefield, Inc.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2014). The logic or order: Westphalia, liberalism, and the evolution of

international order in the modern era. In G. J. Ikenberry (ed.) Power, Order, and Change

in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Immergut, E. (1998). The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism, Politics and

Society, 26, 1: 5-34.

Jervis, R. (1982). Security Regimes. International Organization, 36, 2: 357-378.

Kalev, A., Frank Dobbin and Erin Kelly. (2006). Best practices or Best Guesses? Diversity

Management and the Remediation of Inequality. American Sociological Review, 71, 2:

589-971.

Katzenstein, P. (1996). The Culture of national Security: Norms and Identity in World

Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Keohane, R. (1984). After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, R. (1988). International Institutions: Two Research Programs. International

Studies Quarterly, 32, 4: 379-396.

Kontinen, T. and Onali, A. (2017). Strengthening Institutional Isomorphism in

Development NGOs? Program Mechanisms in an Organizational Intervention. Sage Open,

Volume: 7 issue 1: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016688725

Krasner, S. D. (1983). International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective. Comparative Political

Studies, 21, 1: 66-94.

Kratochwil, F. and John G. Ruggie. (1986). International Organization: A State of the Art

on the Art of the State. International Organization, 40, 4: 753-776.

Lawrence, T. B., and Roy Suddaby. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In Stewart

R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence & Walter R. Nord (Eds.). Sage Handbook

of Organization Studies, 2nd Edition. London: Sage.

Legro, J. (1997). Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism.

International Organization, 51, 1: 31-64.

Meyer, J. W. and Brian Rowan. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal Structure

as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2: 340-63.

Meyer, J. W. and Ronald Jepperson. (2000). The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural

Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 1: 100-20.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 10, Nº. 1 (May-October 2019), pp. 1-13

Institutional isomorphism and the persistence of the present international order

Vítor Ramon Fernandes

Powell, W. W. and Paul J. DiMaggio. (eds.) (1991) The New Institutionalism in

Organizational Analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Puchala, D. J. and and Raymond F. Hopkins. (1982). International Regimes: Lessons

from Inductive Analysis. International Organization, 36, 2: 245-275.

Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded

Liberalism in the Post War Economic Order. International Organization, 36, 2: 3779-415.

Shambaugh, D. (2011). Coping with a Conflicted China. The Washington Quarterly, Vol.

34, No. 1: 7-27.

Stein, A. (1982). Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World.

International Organization, 36, 2: 299-324.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols in Strategies, American Sociological

Review, 51, 2: 273-86.

Tempel, A. and Peter Walgenbach. (2007). Global Standartization of Global Forms and

Management Practices? What New Institutionalism and the Business-System Approach

Can Learn from Each Other. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1: 1-24.

Weber, M. (1947). Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Weber, M., Guenther Roth, Ckus Wittich. (eds.) 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline

of Interpretative Sociology, vols. I e II. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.

International Organization, 41 (3): 335-470.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Young, O. (1982). Regime Dynamics: The Rise and Fall of International Regimes.

International Organization, 36, 2: 277-297.

Young, O. (1986). International Regimes: Towards a New Theory of Institutions. World

Politics, 39, 1: 104-122.