Comparison among the frameworks

A review of the three frameworks suggests that while some concepts are similar across the frameworks, there are certain contrasting features as well (Table 2.3). One point of contrast is between the assumptions underpinning the IAD and the

three-pillar framework. The IAD assumes that social actors are strategic and driven by the motivation of seeking incentives. While this assumption is also acknowledged in Scott’s framework, its major emphasis is on the cultural nature of organisational action in which organisational actors are portrayed as conforming to social norms and traditions, rather than rationally or strategically seeking incentives.

As regards the key explanatory variables, the IAD draws attention to a number of variables. These include the vested or perverse incentives arising from the nature of the goods and services, the culture of the communities, the rules governing stakeholder interactions in the system and the outcome of the system. The framework also indicates the importance of learning that takes place within the system over time. In contrast to the IAD, Scott’s framework (mainly) points to the cultural legitimacy of the organisation’s goals, structures and practices. Thus, as mentioned earlier, Scott’s framework does not take into account the outputs and outcome of the organisation. This is an area where cultural institutionalism differs from the SCOPE framework as well.

Table 2.3 Comparison among the IAD, the three pillars of institutions, and the SCOPE frameworks

Points of comparison

IAD framework Three pillars

framework SCOPE framework Philosophical assumptions Mainly rational- instrumental Mainly socio- cultural Mainly rational- instrumental Key explanatory variables Vested interests or incentives arising from culture, rules governing interactions among actors (e.g. negotiation and ownership), outcome, and constraints of learning (informational problems) Institutional legitimacy – coercive, normative and cognitive; material resources Degree of environmental hostility, system complexity, organisational strategy, and quality of organisational outputs, i.e. project implementation performance Primary unit of analysis

Action arena – action situation and actors

Organisation, groups within an organisation

System and its

stakeholders (resource providers, users)

Origin Developed country but

has history of application in developing countries Mainly developed country; no known application in developing countries

Developed country but has history of application in developing countries History of application in agric. extension

While there is considerable agreement of the SCOPE framework with both schools of institutionalism in that it draws attention to the environment-system interactions, its most obvious distinction is due to an emphasis on strategic management. Unlike the IAD and the three-pillar framework, in which the role of management is largely implicit, the SCOPE framework explicitly recognises that not only can the environment influence an organisation’s survival but also the organisation can influence the environment by adopting appropriate strategies such as through continuous learning and adaptation.

The biggest contrast of the SCOPE is, however, with the three-pillar framework. The SCOPE puts little emphasis on the cultural context as a source of legitimacy for an organisation. On the contrary, the framework is more closely aligned with the rational choice school underpinning the IAD framework due to its strong emphasis on the political and economic contexts. Moreover, like the IAD, the SCOPE also takes into account the outputs and outcomes that are produced by an organisation as important for its sustainability. It also supports the assumption underpinning the IAD that system sustainability is jeopardised when one party unilaterally decides the rules for the weaker parties, that is, the role of asymmetric power.

The unit of analysis in the IAD framework is the action arena in which the actors operate and make decisions or choices. Therefore, the IAD draws attention to the incentives that the key actors within the system face in making decisions and taking actions. Similar to the IAD, the primary unit of analysis in the three-pillar framework is the whole organisation or the group(s) within an organisation. The SCOPE framework considers the whole system or organisation as the unit of analysis, although implicitly, recognising the importance of the stakeholders.

Both the IAD and the SCOPE have a history of application in empirical studies concerning the sustainability of donor-supported projects in developing countries. However, since the SCOPE has been applied in agricultural extension reform projects, it provides a documented empirical ground as an analytical framework for this study. Compared to the IAD and the SCOPE, the framework of Scott has no known history of application in the study of donor-supported extension or rural development projects in developing countries. On the contrary, as Scott (2004) points out, the theoretical foundation of sociological institutionalism is largely

grounded on experiences from organisations in developed countries (particularly USA).

Despite their plausibility, the institutionalism school has received criticism among development writers as being abstract and lacking empirical guidelines for action (see Goldsmith, 1992). Similar is written about the SCOPE (Brown, 1996; Goldsmith, 1992). Brown (1996: 294), for example, noticed that the major weakness of the SCOPE framework is its operational difficulty. The internal, external and strategic variables, as listed in the framework, are difficult to apply mechanically. Although the SCOPE proponents, albeit implicitly, emphasise that learning is important for system sustainability, they do not clearly indicate how such learning would take place and by whom (Brown, 1996). In addition, the model does not clearly articulate how the learning of individual actors (e.g. managers) would translate into the learning of the system as a whole (Brown, 1996). Of particular concern is the problem of measuring ‘outputs’ as articulated in the SCOPE.