Campbell interprets the process by which planned institutional innovation and change occurs to build a foundation for a planned institutional change theory.  He notes that much literature on institutional change pays scant attention to the process, and he wants to fill this void. The issue is significant, he asserts, because institutions affect technological innovation and learning, and, in turn, the competitiveness of industrial sectors and national economies (Casper, 2003; Edquist, 2003; Finegold, 2003; Hage, 2003).  

[Campbell, J. L. (2004). What's New? General Patterns of Planned Macro-Institutional Change. American Sociological Association, 2004 Annual Meeting. San Francisco.]

"Institution," here, is defined not as an organization per se; but rather it comprises formal/informal rules and laws, monitoring/control mechanisms, systems of meaning and operating assumptions that govern and influence organizational practices. Campbell points out that changes in tax law, environmental and economic regulations, property rights law and patent law, for example, represent institutions that can be altered to foster technological innovation.  He views most innovations as evolutionary if spawned and generated from within an organization, revolutionary if the source of influence comes from external forces.

 Key Terms

In the process of establishing his institutional change theory, Campbell defines and expands upon three key terms.

1. Bricolage: He argues that this defines the process wherein planned institutional change happens. When an organization recombines its components (e.g., technology, capital, organizational structure) to create new and profitable products and services, bricolage occurs (Douglas, 1986; Levi-Strauss, 1966). These elements already exit, but are rearranged or recombined in some innovative way.
2. He identifies two types of bricolage - substantive, involving change undertaken to achieve substantive goals such as managing labor-relations problems, improving product quality, increasing a company's market share; and symbolic, nvolving the utilization of language, rhetorical devices and culturally-accepted principles that increase probability of legitimizing change within the broad social environment.
3. Translation is another term of importance similar to bricolage. When institutions incorporate new practices and principles taken from the external environment in ways that facilitate change, then translation occurs. New institutional elements first undergo translation in order to make the innovation "better fit" the local context. If new elements are integrated from outside, then the innovation may be more disruptive and therefore revolutionary, but they are still often tailored to fit the organization.

An example of translation, according to Campbell, is the rise of neoliberalism during the late 20^th century.  He defines neoliberalism as the "cognitive-normative principles that promised solutions for the twin problems of economic stagnation and inflation that occurred in advanced capitalist economies in the 1970s and 1980s".  This involved a shift away from "Keynesian" economic ideas stressing the political management of aggregate demand to more conservative supply-side economics and rational expectations theories (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1995).  Neoliberalism largely emanated from the U.S. to other parts of the world via strong support from international groups like OECD, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (Wade and Veneroso, 1998a, 1998b).

• Constrained innovation involves the process by which problems trigger planned institutional change, the key role of entrepreneurs in that change process and other constraints or elements such as resources, politics, social factors within which institutional entrepreneurs facilitate innovation.

Seven Propositions of Change

Seven propositions about institutional change are presented to establish a framework for a "new theory of institutional change". Although this paper is primarily conceptual and theoretical, each proposition is illustrated with empirical examples of institutional change drawn variously from countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. He focuses on the kinds of problems that trigger episodes of planned institutional change and the central role of institutional entrepreneurs in the change process.

In summary, the seven propositions are defined below.

1. Institutional change happens as a result of internal and external problems that threaten the distribution of resources or power of people working in the organization.
2. Institutional entrepreneurs are the key players in this change process and they recommend how to recombine things in innovative ways, framing situations as problems, and innovations as promising solutions.
3. Entrepreneurs that are situated at the edges and gaps between social networks and organizations are more likely to be exposed to new ideas, which become part of their repertoire and lead to more revolutionary rather than evolutionary changes.
4. To convince decision-makers to adopt new ideas, entrepreneurs must fit  innovations to prevailing situations and frame them in such a way that appears practical, appropriate and sensible thus constraining the degree that innovation will be revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
5. Resources such as money and influence are necessary for entrepreneurs to have their ideas adopted.
6. Mobilizing political support for their innovations is a necessary process for entrepreneurs, and it becomes most apparent during the implementation phase.
7. If decision-makers have "organizational capacities" to adopt and sustain innovation, entrepreneurs have a better chance of seeing their ideas implemented.

The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the possibilities for macro-institutional change among the advanced capitalist countries.  One of the most important challenges for future research, according to Campbell, is ferreting out the conditions by which planned institutional change is more likely to be evolutionary or revolutionary, or under what conditions bricolage and translation actually alter the fundamental institutional framework of society. 

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts/Etc:

• Casper, S. (2003). Institutions and the New Economy in Europe: Case Study-German Biotech. Paper presented at the Conference on Innovation, Learning and Macro-Institutional Change.
• Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
• Finegold, D. (2003). The Role of Education and Training Systems in Innovation. Paper presented at the Conference on Innovation, Learning and Macro-Institutional Change.
• Hage, J. (2003). Institutional Change and Societal Change: The Impact of Globalization and of Knowledge Transformations. Paper presented at the Conference on Innovation, Learning and Macro-Institutional Change.
• Heilbroner, R., & Milberg, W. (1995). The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wade, R., & Veneroso, F. (1998a). The Asian Crisis: The High Debt Model Versus the Wall Street Treasury-IMF Complex. New Left Review, 228, 3-24.
• Wade, R., & Veneroso, F. (1998b). The Gathering World Slump and the Battle Over Capital Controls. New Left Review, 231, 13-42.