INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM IN THE SLAVIC CORE

THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

OF

Lien Verpoest
2 PhD Seminar
Faculty of Social Sciences
12 February 2007
nd

Abstract
This paper sums up the main research question, theoretical framework and
methodological approach of the doctoral research on Institutional
Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the CIS in order to lay the groundwork for
my second doctoral seminar on February 12th 2007.
A brief introduction outlines the current situation of geopolitical pluralism in
the post-Soviet area and formulates the research question.
A second section of the paper delves deeper into the theoretical framework of
the doctoral study. After pointing out some theoretical voids in the new
institutionalism, the focus shifts towards institutional isomorphism. The
theory of institutional isomorphism serves as the main theoretical premise for
this doctoral study and has the potential for explaining institutional change. I
consequently develop my analytical model starting from the isomorphism
theory. In this analytical model, I describe two stages for the research, the
first being structuration and institutional definition towards organisational
fields and the second institutional isomorphism. In the first stage I enumerate
the four organisational characteristics that can indicate institutional
rapprochement. In the second stage I distinguish between two different angles
of isomorphism that might serve as explanatory factors of geopolitical
pluralism in the post-Soviet area: origins and patterns of institutional change
and sources of variation in institutional change.
In the third section of my paper, I highlight the methodological approaches
opted for in the doctoral research: the comparative research cycle and
methodological triangulation; the organisational process model as a framework
for linking the study of institutional change and foreign policy analysis; the
choice of countries; the choice of institutions; and the fieldwork. A brief
conclusion sums up the research question and its corollaries and the value of
institutional isomorphism as a sociological theory for studying political
institutions and foreign policy.

INTRODUCTION: GEOPOLITICAL PLURALISM IN EASTERN EUROPE

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1. The Void of Explaining Institutional Change
2. Innovation through Adaptation: Institutional Isomorphism
2.1. Stage One: Structuration
Organisational Fields

and

Institutional

Definition

towards

2.2. Stage Two: Institutional Isomorphism

a. Origins and Patterns of Institutional Change
b. Sources of Variation / Heterogeneity in Institutional Change

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

1. Comparative Analysis of Institutions
2. A Comparative Analytical Research Cycle
3. Institutional change and Foreign Policy: The Organisational
Process Model
4. Choice of Countries
5. Choice of Institutions
6. Methods and Data Collection
CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION: GEOPOLITICAL PLURALISM IN EASTERN EUROPE

The post-Soviet space accommodates a whole range of divergent domestic
and foreign policy choices. Degrees of democratisation and market reform, let
alone of institutional reform, vary among the Soviet successor states (Linz &
Stepan 1996, Pivovarov & Fursov 1999). Not only on the economic and social
level, but also in their foreign policy, the former Soviet states are following
different trajectories.
The establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on 8
December 1991 entangled the geopolitical situation in the post-Soviet space
even more as it conjoined different countries with divergent policy goals into
one organisation. Some member states (e.g. Ukraine 1) perceived the CIS as
an elegant solution to bring about a civilised divorce (Kubicek 1999). Other
members (e.g. Russia and Belarus) on the other hand saw its main purpose in
co-ordinating the economic and security policies among the Soviet successor
states2, especially because of the complex economic interdependence of the
region. Tellingly, Russia envisioned the CIS-construction as an adequate
framework to re-assert her leading role in the post-Soviet region. Fifteen
years along the road of putative CIS integration, institutional development of
the CIS has stalled, and integration efforts have dissipated over the CIS area
(Malgin 2002, Sakwa & Webber 1999). The members of the CIS have become
involved in a host of other sub-regional initiatives like the GUUAM, the
Eurasian Economic Community, the Union between Russia and Belarus, and
the Single Economic Space3 (Penner 2003, Splidsboel-Hansen 2000).
In view of these developments, we could claim that the post-communist
transition has led to a significantly heterogeneous political landscape in the
post-Soviet space. Over the past fifteen years we have witnessed the
evolution from a unitary Soviet state to an area containing a variety of foreign
policy goals ranging from EU membership to regional integration. In late
1997, Zatulin and Migranian recognised in an article that geopolitical
pluralism4 had arrived in the former USSR (Kuzio 2000a&b, Zatulin &
Migranian 1997: 1-2; Kubicek 2000). Geopolitical pluralism can be observed
in different levels of state and society: the divergent policy preferences of the
1

Ukraines status within the CIS is rather contradictory: although it was one of the three signatories
(together with Russia and Belarus) of the Belavezhe Treaty of 8 December 1991 that founded the CIS,
Ukraine never ratified this Treaty and therefore never became and actual member. (Mandelbaum 1998)
2
This co-ordinating role was initially mainly taken up by Russia. See Andreyev 2000, Tkatchenko &
Petermann 2002, Starostin 1992.
3
The Single Economic Space counts Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan among its members,
whereas the Eurasian Economic Community coalesces Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
4
The term was first asserted by Brzezinski in 1994, and was purposefully supported by the West, with the
objective of weakening Russias leading role in the CIS.

former Soviet states, in different political models on which the Newly

Independent States based themselves during transition or diversity in
economic transition and trade links. Also, the divergent foreign policy
preferences epitomise the path of development these countries have
embarked upon.
My doctoral study intends to assess how geopolitical pluralism is reflected in
the institutional change of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus by situating these
three former Union Republics between two organisational fields on the
European continent: the European Union and the Commonwealth of
Independent States. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine each have developed their
own political and institutional transition. There are clear similarities and
differences in the democratic development, the institutional build-up and the
reorganisation of their administrations. The disparate institutional development
and apparent divergence in foreign policy preferences can therefore lead to the
question whether the institutions and state administration in these three
countries have been drafted to the liking of the EU or of the CIS-co-operation
structure. More specifically, the core question of this research is:
Which mechanisms within the political institutions of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus generate isomorphism toward the European Union and the
Commonwealth of Independent States, and what is the rationale behind the
divergent foreign policy orientations in the Slavic Core of the CIS?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section, I will focus on institutional isomorphism, the specific newinstitutionalist approach used in this study. This application of organisational
analysis will be presented and elaborated in detail, after which I will move on
to the methodological aspects of the study.
1. The Void of Explaining Institutional Change
Our difficulties with the new institutionalism have less to do with its tenets than with its silences (Brint &
Karabel 1991: 31)

One of the definite strong points of new institutionalism is its

interdisciplinarity. New institutionalist approaches can be found not only in
political science, but also in economic, sociological and even historical
comparative analysis. Although all try to contrive a comprehensive view on
institutions, different applications of institutionalism each focus on
expounding a specific aspect of the institution. However, most applications
(but one) struggle to come to terms with the aspect of institutional change.
Sociological institutionalism however, and more specifically organisational
analysis5 succeeds in illustrating the explanatory potential of institutional
theory in an area in which it has been relatively silent: the analysis of
organisational change (Powell&DiMaggio 1991: 1). Within organisational
analysis, the theory of institutional isomorphism might provide a satisfactory
answer to the questions that arise when studying post-communist institutional
processes in the Slavic core of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

2. Innovation through Adaptation: Institutional Isomorphism

A part of the sociological institutionalist approach, institutional isomorphism
was first put forward by Walter Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio in their 1983 article
The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality
in Organisational Fields (American Sociological Review 48 (2), 1983).
Powell and DiMaggio argue that the causes of bureaucratisation and
rationalisation have changed. According to them, structural change is less and
less driven by the need for efficiency. They contend that organisational change
5

It should be noted, however, that organisational analysis does not specify any clear distinctions between
the concept of institution and that of organisation but rather prefer to slide from one noun to the other
(Scott 1994, in Peters 1999). Yet other disciplines in institutional analysis also fail to make this distinction.

occurs as the result of processes that make organisations more similar without
necessarily making them more efficient (Powell & DiMaggio 1983: 147). The
most important goal here is not efficiency but legitimacy of the organisations.
They stress the actors belief that legitimacy stems from conforming and
adapting to the general rules and norms; isomorphism.
Institutional isomorphism thus looks at organisations competing for
institutional legitimacy. Not only newly emerging organisations, but also
existing institutions can show signs of isomorphism. When implementing
institutional reforms, rational actors in these institutions modify their features
in order to resemble the institutions in their organisational field; this
enhances their legitimacy. Legitimacy depends on its conformity with general
rules and standards of the organisational field. This is why it seems rational to
conform to this image (Meyer & Rowan 1983).
Processes of isomorphism can be witnessed in the post-communist transition
of Central and Eastern Europe. The gradual demise of the Soviet institutions
created a certain void that called for institutional reinterpretation and
redefinition. The Newly Independent States had to decide on which further
path of development to embark, how exactly to pull through the necessary
economic and political reforms, based on which values, and which state
system. Looking East and West for inspiration for reforms is inherent to the
transition process, especially on the level of foreign policy. Isomorphic
tendencies are legion, e.g. the future enlargement of the European Union,
which encompassed the required adaptation of the candidate member states
institutions and political structures to the European Unions acquis
communautaire, CIS integration inspired by models of European integration
(Malfliet 2002), etc.
It is the aim of my research to analyse the process of institutional change in
the Slavic Core of the CIS from the theoretical perspective of institutional
isomorphism. More specifically, I seek to analyse how isomorphism surfaces
through different stages in the institutions of the three selected countries.
Consequently, the issue of geopolitical pluralism in the Slavic Core of the CIS
will be confronted by exploring and elaborating the causal mechanisms of
isomorphism.
I will focus on one specific aspect that reflects institutional isomorphism in the
post-Soviet area, namely the foreign policy of the selected countries vis--vis
the EU and CIS organisational fields. First of all because by focusing on one

particular policy area, I want to avoid a too general assessment of the

processes of change and institutional dynamics. Secondly, I think that
isomorphic tendencies of a country might be reflected most clearly in its
foreign policy, because the institutions involved in the making of foreign policy
are in constant interaction with corresponding institutions in other countries.
Thirdly, because I think that the link between institutional change and foreign
policy might tell us something more about the functioning, the causes and the
effects of geopolitical pluralism in the Slavic core of the Commonwealth of
Independent States. I will therefore concentrate on the institutions in these
countries that all deal (to a greater or lesser extent) with foreign policy: the
Presidential Administration (defining function), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(executive function), and the Parliament (reflective function).
In the analytical model that I developed, I distinguish between two important
and distinct stages describe institutional isomorphism. Stage one comprises
the institutional definition towards an organisational field as a result of the
activities of a diverse set of organisations. The homogenisation of these
organisations and of new entrants once the field is established makes up the
second stage (Powell & DiMaggio 1983: 148).

1.1. Stage One: Structuration

Organisational Fields

and

Institutional

Definition

towards

A first crucial step in analysing the processes of institutional change is

therefore to examine the structuration and institutional definition of the
organisational fields (Giddens 1979, 1984)6. By this I mean first of all assessing
the emergence and development of the organisational field and secondly its
relation with the countries in its periphery (in this case, Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus).
Several dimensions epitomise the structuration of an organisational field. Apart
from the collective definition of the field, another important dimension is the
emergence of a centre-periphery structure7. Institutions in the periphery of an
6

Giddens describes structuration as a continual and necessary reproduction of social structure by

knowledgeable agents in everyday life and the reciprocal indexing of their actions to shared typification
(Giddens 1984:44, in Powell&DiMaggio 1991: 22); Walter Powell observes that institutions provide shape
to the moral definitions of the purposes and regulations of recurrent social life, which is according to Powell
one of the key points of Giddens structuration theory (Powell 1991: 192).
7
In a 1991 article, DiMaggio enumerates 4 dimensions of structuration; increase in the density of interorganisational contacts, increases in the flow of information, emergence of a centre-periphery structure,
and the collective definition of a field. These correspond with the organisational characteristics mentioned
in the Powell&DiMaggio chapter of the same year. Earlier in a 1983 article DiMaggio elaborated five
elements of structuration which correspond with Powell&DiMaggios organisational characteristics.

organisational field are more frequently exposed to different outside influences

than institutions that are in the very centre of an established organisational
field. Therefore, these institutions have more often been the subject of
institutional change, resulting in less uniform institutions with more diversity in
their features and their institutional composition. Moreover, because they are
in the periphery of the organisational field, these institutions often display
more national specificities than institutions in the centre of the field.
In order to make an exhaustive assessment of the centre-periphery relations
between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus on the one hand and the EU and CIS
organisational field on the other hand, one needs to look into two stages. First
of all, one needs to first assess how peripheral institutions have reacted to
outside influences and sudden, profound change. Secondly, one needs to study
how exactly the institutional definition of peripheral institutions towards central
institutions occurs.
The first stage can be adequately assessed by a concise overview of the
recent events in the selected countries that might have triggered institutional
change, most importantly the implosion of the Soviet Union. In the second
stage, the specific initiatives of institutional definition in Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus signalling rapprochement with the EU or CIS must be determined.
Institutional definition will initially be examined by literature review of relevant
primary and secondary sources: the analysis of official documents that reveal
the foreign policy strategies towards the organisational fields. Consequently,
the institutional definition will also be determined through empirical
investigation. This analysis departs from four basic organisational
characteristics. These characteristics contribute to deepening the
interrelations between the different parts of the organised whole (=the field),
resulting eventually in isomorphism.
The four organisational characteristics are:
(1) increased interaction among organisations in the field
(2) the emergence of sharply defined interorganisational structures of
dominance and coalition
(3) an increase in information load with which institutions and organisations in
the field must contend

(4) the development of a mutual awareness among participants in a set of

organisations that they are involved in a common enterprise
(Powell & DiMaggio 1983: 148)
The empirical assessment of institutional definition by means of the four
organisational characteristics permits a comprehensive analysis, since these
four organisational characteristics cover the dimensions of the organisational
field that are most important for this study; not only the different aspects of
centre-periphery relations (increased interaction, increase of information
load), but also the collective definition as a field (mutual awareness of being
involved in common enterprise, emergence of inter-organisational structures
of dominance and coalition). Therefore, this first stage will make an adequate
initial assessment of the topics under study: the organisational fields and the
institutions in the peripheral countries (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus), and
their institutional definition towards the fields, which is, according to Powell
and DiMaggio a first step towards institutional isomorphism.
Fig. 1 Structuration and Institutional Definition of the Organisational Field

STAGE ONE
STRUCTURATION & INSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION

OF THE

ORGANISATIONAL FIELD

1.

2.

Collective definition of

Emergence of centre-periphery

organisational field

structure

- clear delineation of organisational field

- description of structuration process

- institutional definition of peripheral

institutions towards an organisational
field

In sum, the first stage of this research comprises studying the structuration of
and institutional definition towards the organisational field. The structuration
of an organisational field is assessed by a clear delineation of the field (and
its boundaries) and of the structuration process. One dimension of the
structuration process, the centre-periphery relation, is particularly relevant as
it is the main focus of the study. In order to explain the interaction between

centre and periphery, I will also look into how peripheral institutions have
reacted to outside influences and sudden change, and concentrate on how
these institutions define themselves towards the organisational field
(institutional definition).

1.2. Stage Two: Institutional Isomorphism

The second phase of my analytical model focuses on the increasing
homogenisation of institutions in the centre and periphery of an organisational
field. The concept that best captures this process of homogenisation is
isomorphism (Powell&DiMaggio 1983:149). This term is defined as a process
that leads one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same
set of environmental conditions (Hawley 1968, qtd in Powell& DiMaggio 1983),
and is employed to enhance institutional legitimacy.
This second stage of my research will therefore first of all consist of a thorough
evaluation of institutional change and redesigning of the countries selected
institutions since 1991. The evaluation will enable us to identify these
countries foreign policy priorities, and to analyse their institutional definition
toward the organisational field. The observable divergence in the countries
policy choices will lead us to the issue of geopolitical pluralism, which will
cover a second part of the isomorphic stage. More specifically, two issues will
require substantial reflection here; origins and patterns of institutional change
in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and the sources of variation in institutional
change that lead to geopolitical pluralism in the Post-Soviet area8.
Fig. 2 Stage 2: Institutional Isomorphism

STAGE TWO: INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM

evaluation of institutional change and institutional redesigning

In his 1991 essay Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis (Powell & DiMaggio 1991: 183-203),
Walter Powell acknowledged some shortcomings of isomorphist theory, Walter Powell pointed out several
areas in need of improvement, the most important one being the need for an enhanced understanding of
both the processes that generate institutional change and of the sources of heterogeneity in institutional
environments.

10

origins & patterns of institutional sources

of
variation
change
institutional change

in

a. Origins and Patterns of Institutional Change

Originally, isomorphic theory saw the underlying reasons for institutional
change anchored in three causal mechanisms: coercive, mimetic, and
normative isomorphism. Although certain traits of these causal mechanisms
certainly apply to the institutional change in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, it is a
too narrow model that might fail to fully address the many aspects and
incentives of institutional processes of post-communist transition in the Slavic
Core.
Therefore, to identify the causal mechanisms that explain institutional change,
I opted to depart from six factors: coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphic
processes, unsuccessful imitation, incomplete institutionalisation, and the
recomposition of organisational fields. These causal mechanisms are
extensively described in the first chapter of my PhD. For this seminar paper, I
will limit myself to the following table that depicts the connotation of the
different causal mechanisms.

Fig. 3 Causal mechanisms of isomorphism and hypothetical applications

Coercive Isomorphism

Pressures, dependence, cultural

expectations

Mimetic Isomorphism

uncertainty , imitation
modelling institutions after organisations
perceived as more successful

Normative Isomorphism

professionalisation of organisations and

networks

Incomplete Institutionalisation

strategic support for certain policies

actual implementation of policies left
unspecified

Unsuccessful Imitation

attempts of replicating practices of other

organisations, resulting in unintended

11

changes
Recomposition of Organisational
Fields

institutional change when boundaries of

organisational field change due to a.o.
geopolitical reshuffling

b. Sources of Variation / Heterogeneity in Institutional Change

This section will offer some insight on how my dissertation intends to explain
the sources of heterogeneity in the three cases institutional change that
eventually leads to geopolitical pluralism.
The reason for this heterogeneity lies partly in the fact that the creation,
development and change of institutions are all history-dependent processes
(Powell 1991: 195). Institutions emerge at different times and under specific
circumstances. Also, certain practices within institutions will be perpetuated
because of persisting assumptions and complex interdependencies. All of this
points to path dependent patterns of development, in which initial choices
preclude future options. In order to come to a better understanding of the
factors that promote heterogeneity, we therefore need to recognise the
complexity of institutional environments and trace the sources of divergence
by exploring these path dependent processes, which occur both at the level
of institutions and the collective level of the organisational field (Powell 1991:
191-192).
Path dependence captures the whole underlying idea of institutions developing
at different times and varying speeds. Institutions are seen as relatively
persistent features of the historical landscape and one of the central factors
pushing historical development along a set of paths. When a government
institution or organisation embarks upon a path, it is difficult to stray from the
chosen path of this institution, because of the institutions propensity to persist
in the chosen course of policies. (Hall & Taylor 1996: 939; Krasner 1984).

12

RESEARCH DESIGN

AND

METHODOLOGY

1. Comparative Analysis of Institutions

In the field of post-Sovietology, relatively few researchers have focused on
the comparative analysis of formal state institutions9. On comparing
legislatures for example, Joel Ostrow remarks that most works in the field of
comparative legislative studies either develop descriptive typologies of
legislatures based on their characteristics and functions or elaborate single
case studies. Little effort has been made to develop and apply criteria for
explaining legislative behaviour or why some perform better than others.
(Ostrow 2000: 20). I endorse his claim that a comparative institutionalist
approach offers much potential for the broader subfield of comparative
politics. It embraces a bottom-up approach to theory-building that (.) is a
refreshing departure from attempts at grand-theory and all of the
accompanying limitations demonstrated by past and recent modernisation
to transitions to democracy approaches (Ostrow 2000: 21).
Taking comparative analysis as its basic methodological premise, this study
endorses Denzins multiple triangulation10 approach. Both theoretical and
methodological triangulation will be applied; theoretical triangulation by
approaching the research with diverse perspectives and hypotheses in mind,
and methodological triangulation by using two or more methods (e.g. survey
and discourse analysis) to measure the same phenomenon will be applied.

2. A Comparative Analytical Research Cycle

Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers (1980) link comparative politics to the
path dependence approach by identifying three distinct logics of comparative
history that form a research cycle: 1) parallel demonstration of theory, 2)
contrast of contexts, 3) macro-causal analysis.

Whereas informal institutions do get quite some attention in the comparative analysis of the post-Soviet
space, especially from authors who focus on informal networks, lobbying groups, etc .. in these countries,
or who statistically compare the importance that citizens of different countries attach to informal
institutions.
10
Obtaining data from a wide range of different sources, using a variety of methods, investigators or
theories; its main purposes being confirmation of certain hypotheses and achieving greater completeness
in the study

13

The parallel demonstration of theory looks for similarities among the cases in
terms of common applicability of the theoretical arguments (Skocpol &
Somers 1980: 176).
The contrast of contexts approach reasons the other way round. It highlights
the unique features of each case and aims to demonstrate how the
particularities of each case affect social processes.
Macro-causal analysis (also called multivariate hypothesis-testing) is the third
approach suggested by Skocpol and Somers and unlike the contrast oriented
comparativists, macro-analysts do aspire to test the validity of existing
theories and to develop new causal generalisations to replace invalidated
ones (Skocpol & Somers 1980: 182) through comparative analysis. Different
academic works have sometimes combined these approaches; this study will
accordingly reflect features of the three distinct logics.

Parallel comparative history

Macro-causal
Analysis

Contrast of
Contexts

Fig. 4. The triangle of comparative history as a complementary system (Skocpol &

Somers 1980: 188)

The comparative analysis will take place through the well-known Most Similar
Systems Design (MSSD) as put forward by Przeworski and Teune (1970), who
describe it as:
based on a belief that a number of theoretically significant differences will
be found among similar systems and these differences can be used in
explanation. The alternative design [MDSD], which seeks maximal
heterogeneity in the sample of systems, is based on a belief in intersystemic

14

differentiation, the [cases] will differ with regard to only a limited number of
variables or relationships (Przeworski & Teune 1970: 39) 11
In MSSD, the comparison between relatively similar countries allows to
neutralise certain differences in order to permit a better analysis of other
differences12. The countries of the Slavic Core of the CIS have many
similarities, not only on governmental or organisational level; as mentioned
earlier, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus also hold numerous historical and cultural
parallels. The comparable background of these countries allows us to focus
on one specific aspect, i.e. institutional change resulting in disparate foreign
policy orientations.

3. Institutional change and Foreign Policy: The Organisational

Process Model
In order to provide an adequate context for comparing the interaction
between institutional change and foreign policy in Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus, stage one of this study links up with Graham Allisons Organisational
Process Model. One of the most prominent scholars on foreign policy, he
developed an innovative perspective on foreign policy that does not primarily
focus on decision makers, but perceives the institutions and bureaucracies
behind these decision makers as playing a crucial role in foreign policy,
thereby treading the common ground between IR and political science.
Opposing the behaviouralist view of foreign policy being determined by
actors as rational decision makers (which he brands the Classical Rational
Actor Model), Graham Allison proposed two new models in his 1971 book 13:
the Organisational Process Model and the Bureaucratic Politics Model. Both
models often mentioned under the common denominator of the
bureaucratic politics account (as opposed to the rational actor model) offered a way of explaining FP decision-making that is distinctly different
from the rational-actor account of the process (Smith 1992: 109).
Governments consist of different organisations (institutions) among which
primary responsibility for particular tasks is divided 14 among organisations in
order to respond to a wide spectrum of policy issues. Few important issues
however fall exclusively within the domain of a single organisation, especially
on the level of foreign policy. The multiple facets of foreign affairs requires
11

See also Landman 2000, King et al. 1994, Hague&Harrop 2001.

In MDSD on the other hand, countries with a maximum degree of differences are compared in order to distil
out of the diversity a common element that can have great explanatory power (Mackie & Marsh 1995: 179,
Collier 1993: 113).
12

13

In his famous book Essence of Decision (1971), Allison developed two models which could form an
alternative to the traditional approach of foreign policy analysis that focuses on the actor-decision maker..
14
Allison 1971:67.

15

that problems be cut up and parcelled out to various organisations like e.g.
the MFA, parliament and Presidential Administration. (Allison 1971:67, 80;
Clarke 1992: 51).
Graham Allison goes as far to state that a government consists of a
conglomerate of semi-feudal, loosely allied organisations, each with a
substantial life of its own (Allison 1971: 67). The specificity of each
organisation that contributes to a greater or lesser extent to the development
of foreign policy priorities and directives might therefore imply some
obstacles along the road to a coherent foreign policy position. One of the
strong points of the organisational process model is its particular mindfulness
for and sensitivity towards the specific internal aspects of these loosely allied
domestic organisations that determine foreign policy. By not only paying
attention to the formal standard operating procedures on the highest level,
but also by being attentive to the complex interplay between these
institutions on the domestic level, this approach may help to uncover the
complex machineries of the state and its different institutions that result in
foreign policy actions15.
The organisational process model is more than fitting to study processes of
isomorphism in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Its perspective generally
corresponds with the basic characteristics of isomorphism, and can therefore
serve as a comprehensive context enabling us to carry out a comparative
study of foreign policy on the level of institutions. With such methodological
perspective of foreign policy analysis that is distinctly tailored to the
specificities of the research topic (most importantly, studying foreign policy
on the level of institutions instead of focusing on a few decision-makers), this
approach is bound to give us very useful and innovative insights about the
interaction between the foreign policy of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and
isomorphic change.

4. Choice of Countries
The rationale behind the selection of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine as countries
for comparison is threefold. First of all, these three countries constitute a
particular region that is crucial in the contemporary European geopolitical
landscape. Of the CIS region, these three countries matter the most for the
enlarged European Union. Ukraine and Belarus matter because since May
2004, they share a common border with the European Union and have to co15

Clarke moreover remarks here that in analysing foreign policy behaviour from the organisational process
perspective, we need to look at the subtler mixture of roles and motives that may affect quite low-level
decision-makers officials who on formal assumptions would be regarded as merely implementers (Clarke
1992: 51).

16

operate as new neighbours on a.o. border issues. Russia matters because of

its dominant influence in the post-Soviet area, for security as well as for
energy considerations. Although their proximity to the organisational field of
the European Union determines the three countries foreign policy, their
membership of the less developed but therefore not less significant
organisation of the CIS should not be ignored. Although not amounting to the
organisational level of the European Union, this much younger Eastern
European construction that hopes to mirror the EU structures in the future
does function as an organisational field (Malfliet 2002, Rontoyanni 2000,
Stefes 2003). The foreign policy of the three countries is therefore also
determined by this organisational field.
Secondly, the fact that these three countries constitute the Slavic core of the
CIS connotes correlation and analogy. Historical, political, and cultural
similarities between the three countries are manifold. The affinities between
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus allow us moreover to apply MSSD and single out
the differences to be studied from these predominantly similar backgrounds
This leads us to the third and most important rationale for choosing these
three states: the differences in their foreign policy orientation. When taking a
first look at the Slavic Core, one does not immediately encounter any clear
indicators that can explain discrepancies in foreign policies. However, close
scrutiny of the particular context in which the institutional design and
formation took place, as well as puncture points that triggered institutional
change during the transition period, uncover a different picture that is of
interest to this study.

5. Choice of Institutions
In order to study the influence of transitional change on political institutions
and its impact on state performance (Lane & Ersson 1994: 172) and policy
outcomes, the institutions in which these processes take place should be
selected carefully and meticulously. Process and institution studies, as
described by Guy Peters, rather concentrate on the development of lowerlevel comparisons of a particular institution or process, than on the
comparison of complete political systems (Peters, 1998: 10). Institutions
included in the analysis are the Presidential Administration, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and the Parliament in the three respective countries.
In all three countries, the Presidential Administration plays a crucial role in
foreign policy orientation, with its officials actively involved in discussing and

17

drafting policy-oriented proposals on both organisational fields of the CIS and

the European Union (designing foreign policy).
Because of their deep involvement in the practicalities and implementation of
foreign policy directives, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the most
extensive and comprehensive organisational structure with specific divisions
(departamenty i upravleniya) in the ministries dealing with the relations the
CIS and the European Union. This makes it particularly interesting to study
because of the active co-operation and increasing information flow between
the MFA and the two organisational fields.
Despite being reassessed during the post-communist transition, parliaments
still have a limited impact on domestic and foreign policy, that doesnt match
the influence of the Security Council or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Agh
1994, Clark 1999, Olson 1999, Remington 2001). Nevertheless, formal
committees (komitety) and informal groupings within this institution reflect
upon the policy towards both organisational fields 16. Apart from their
reflective function, the important role of the committee system in the Soviet
past is a noteworthy fact for our path dependent approach (Ostrow 2000: 89)17.

6. Methods and Data Collection

After an initial comparative analysis of institutional creation and design in
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to identify possible determinants for institutional
development (or the lack of it), I turn to isomorphism for studying
institutional change in the Slavic core of the CIS.
A first venture into testing the theory takes place in stage one through the
analysis of institutional definition of the three countries towards the
organisational fields. By verifying whether the four organisational
characteristics mentioned earlier are present in the organisational structures
of the three countries, isomorphic tendencies can be detected.
In the second phase, the process of isomorphism in the selected institutions
will be studied. In order to test and identify the presence and type of
isomorphism in the countries institutions, I will depart from a range of
hypotheses suggested by Powell and DiMaggio (Powell & DiMaggio 1983:
150-152). Through test interviews, the hypotheses will be refined and
additional specifications made where necessary. By doing this, other
indicators of isomorphism will also surface.
16

Like the parliamentary committee for CIS affairs in the Russian State Duma, the committee for European
Integration in the Ukrainian Rada, pro-European fractions in the parliaments like the European Club in the
Duma and Vladimir Ryzhkovs Russia in a United Europe group.
17

Moreover, an institution that has had such a turbulent start in the newly independent states should not
be overlooked (Harasymiw 2000, Olson 2002).

18

After making the research hypotheses a more adequate tool for analysis, the
fieldwork will take place by means of a small-scale electronic survey. The
main aim of this survey is to obtain information about peoples views,
opinions, ideas and experiences on three topics: institutional reform, foreign
policy and values perception in their respective countries. These questions
will also touch upon on the earlier mentioned organisational characteristics of
isomorphism. The survey will enable me to test the hypotheses (formulated
by Powell and DiMaggio) for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. These hypotheses
reflect the causal mechanisms of isomorphism and therefore, the questions
aim to shed light on both the presence and determinants of isomorphism.
In order to maintain structural equivalence, the idea of triangulation emerges
here. The survey will therefore be complemented by the qualitative analysis
of official policy documents and agreements, many of them which are drafted
by the Presidential Administration of the three countries. This additional type
of analysis underscores the role that the Presidential Administration plays in
mapping the countrys foreign policy. These official documents shed light on
the policy preferences, divergent orientations and prevalent tendencies in
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. A selection of official foreign policy documents
of the three countries is listed here.

Fig.5: Official foreign policy documents, charters and agreements of countries

concerning org. fields

Russia

Ukraine

Belarus

EU

CIS
& subregional
integration involving
the 3 countries

General

- Medium Term
Strategy for the
Development of the
Relations between the
Russian Federation
and the European
Union (2000-2010)

- CIS Charter 1991:

Ustav Sodruzhestvo
Nezavisimykh
Gosudarstv
- Agreement on the
Creation of a Union
State Russia Belarus
Union documents
- CIS Charter 1991:
Ustav Sodruzhestvo
Nezavisimykh
Gosudarstv
- The Yalta Charter of
GUUAM
- CIS Charter 1991:
Ustav Sodruzhestvo
Nezavisimykh

- Foreign Policy
Concept (June 2000)
- Concept of National
Security

- Strategy for the

Integration of Ukraine
into the European
Union (1998)
- On the Relations
with the European
Union: the

19

- Foreign Policy
Priorities of Ukraine

- Prioritety i
Napravleniya
vneshnepoliticheskoy

development of a
political dialogue

Gosudarstv
- Agreement on the
Creation of a Union
State Russia Belarus
Union documents

deyatelnosti
- The Foreign Policy of
Belarus: A Tradition of
Pragmatic Good
neighbourliness

As a third part of triangulation the electronic survey and the study of policy
documents will be complemented with the analysis of the prevalent discourse
in the selected institutions and groupings, based on primary sources e.g.
parliamentary debates and committee proceedings concerning external
affairs (more specifically Europe and the CIS).

20

Conclusion
In sum, this paper outlined the theoretical and methodological framework of
my doctoral research. The following research questions were formulated at
the outset of this paper:
Which mechanisms within the political institutions of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus generate isomorphism toward the European Union and the
Commonwealth of Independent States, and what is the rationale behind the
divergent foreign policy orientations in the Slavic Core of the CIS?
Logically, specific questions derive from these core questions, for example,
how does Russias leading role in the CIS translate itself in to the structure of
the selected institutions? How does Ukraine combine its European choice
with its membership in several subregional initiatives in the framework of the
CIS? The comparison between the institutions in Ukraine and Belarus, could
reveal an interesting contrast between the two countries.
By asking these questions, I seek to explain the motivations behind the
geopolitical pluralism that currently marks the post-Soviet area by analysing
it through the theory of institutional isomorphism. The two stages of
isomorphist theory change serve as the main structure through which the
processes of institutional isomorphic change can be scrutinised. By first
studying the institutional definition of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus towards
the EU and CIS organisational fields, the geopolitical structures on the
Eurasian continent can be mapped. The second stage will investigate origins
and patterns of institutional change and sources of heterogeneity in
isomorphic change. This can clarify the cultural and geographical divisions
between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and more in general between the two
organisational fields (EU and CIS).
The Slavic Core of the CIS as a MSSD lends itself to applying several logics of
Skocpol & Somers research cycle. Endorsing methodological triangulation,
this dissertation comprises a comparative analysis performed through the
study of official documents and agreements, discourse analysis, some
interviews and an electronic survey based on elaborated hypotheses
suggested by Powell and DiMaggio.
The main advantage of the theory of isomorphism is twofold. First of all, it
offers a mechanism for examining how not only political, but also historical
and cultural determinants can influence the political organisation and foreign
policy orientation of a state. In doing this, it underscores the importance of

21

historical and cultural factors, often neglected in the research of democratic

transitions.
A second advantage is the theorys wide applicability and its openness
towards other disciplines. It enables us to overcome the usual divide between
comparative politics and area studies and to combine these approaches in a
complementary way, thus contributing to the main aim of this doctoral
research: an exhaustive and innovative analysis of processes of institutional
change in the post-communist transition.

22