Full Ebook of Managing Institutions The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland China 1St Edition Ying Wang Online PDF All Chapter

Managing Institutions The Survival of
Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland

China 1st Edition Ying Wang
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/managing-institutions-the-survival-of-minban-seconda
ry-schools-in-mainland-china-1st-edition-ying-wang/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Alternative Representations of the Past The Politics of

History in Modern China 1st Edition Ying-Kit Chan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/alternative-representations-of-the-
past-the-politics-of-history-in-modern-china-1st-edition-ying-
kit-chan/
The Art of Terrestrial Diagrams in Early China 1st

Edition Michelle H. Wang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-art-of-terrestrial-diagrams-in-
early-china-1st-edition-michelle-h-wang/
Confucian Image Politics Masculine Morality in

Seventeenth Century China Ying Zhang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/confucian-image-politics-masculine-
morality-in-seventeenth-century-china-ying-zhang/
Environmental Strategy and Planning in China 1st

Edition Jinnan Wang Xiahui Wang Jun Wan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/environmental-strategy-and-
planning-in-china-1st-edition-jinnan-wang-xiahui-wang-jun-wan/
Environmental Strategy and Planning in China 1st
Edition Jinnan Wang Xiahui Wang Jun Wan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/environmental-strategy-and-
planning-in-china-1st-edition-jinnan-wang-xiahui-wang-jun-wan-2/
Trade and Expansion in Han China A Study in the

Structure of Sino Barbarian Economic Relations Ying-
Shih Yu
https://ebookmeta.com/product/trade-and-expansion-in-han-china-a-
study-in-the-structure-of-sino-barbarian-economic-relations-ying-
shih-yu/
Cyberdualism in China The Political Implications of

Internet Exposure of Educated Youth 1st Edition Shiru
Wang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/cyberdualism-in-china-the-
political-implications-of-internet-exposure-of-educated-
youth-1st-edition-shiru-wang/
Moving Between Cultures Through Arts Based Inquiry Re

membering Identity 1st Edition Ying Wang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/moving-between-cultures-through-
arts-based-inquiry-re-membering-identity-1st-edition-ying-wang/
Consensus or Conflict China and Globalization in the

21st Century 1st Edition Huiyao Wang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/consensus-or-conflict-china-and-
globalization-in-the-21st-century-1st-edition-huiyao-wang/
Managing Institutions
Managing Institutions:
The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools
in Mainland China
By
Ying Wang
Managing Institutions:
The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland China,
by Ying Wang
This book first published 2013
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2013 by Ying Wang
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-5168-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5168-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................................ viii
List of Figures............................................................................................. ix
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... x
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Introduction
1.1 Minban education in contemporary China
1.2 Definition of key concepts
1.3 Structure of the study
Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 9

The Theory of New Institutionalism
2.1 New institutionalism
2.2 Comparing old and new institutionalism
2.3 New institutionalism in organization: The theoretical cycle
2.4 New institutionalism in the study of education
2.5 Summary
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 31

Minban Education Policies in China
3.1 Disruption of minban schools: 1949–1977
3.2 Re-emergence of minban schools: 1978–1991
3.3 Development of minban education: 1992--1996
3.4 Normalization of minban education: 1997–2001
3.5 Legalized regression of minban school: 2002 onwards
3.6 Summary
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 48

The Institutional Environment of Minban Education
4.1 Minban: Reality or myth
4.2 Controlled decentralization of government
4.3 The influence of bureaucracy and consumerism
4.4 The new investment familism of consumer choice
4.5 Summary
vi Table of Contents
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 72

Research Design and Methodology
5.1 Methodology
5.2 Data collection methods
5.3 Sample and sampling methods
5.4 Fieldwork procedure
Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 83

The Local Institutional Environments of Taiyuan and Shenzhen
6.1 Profiles of Taiyuan and Shenzhen
6.2 Local regulation of minban education in Taiyuan and Shenzhen
6.3 Comparing Taiyuan and Shenzhen
6.4 Education consumers in Taiyuan and Shenzhen
6.5 Conclusion
Chapter Seven...........................................................................................116
The Local Institutional Environment of Minban School: Cases
7.1 International schools
7.2 Privately funded minban schools
7.3 Affiliated minban schools
7.4 Converted minban schools
7.5 Classification of minban schools
Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 172

Managing Institutions: Minban Schools in Taiyuan and Shenzhen
8.1 International schools
8.2 Privately funded minban school
8.3 Affiliated minban schools
8.4 Converted minban schools
8.5 Comparing the four types of minban schools and their strategies
Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 206

Conclusion
9.1 Features of the new educational institutional environment
9.2 Differential order (chaxu geju) of minban schools
9.3 Strategies to manage institutions
9.4 The function of minban schools in China
9.5 Contribution of the research
9.6 Limitations and suggestions for further research
Managing Institutions vii
References ............................................................................................... 216
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................. 232

Locations of Research Cases in Taiyuan and Shenzhen
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................. 234

Code of School Documents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Development of minban schools (1994–2007)

Table1.2: Statistics on secondary schools, students and graduates by types
of operators (2007)
Table 2.1: Comparison of approaches
Table 2.2: Three pillars of institutions
Table 3.1: Statistics on minban secondary education (1994–1996)
Table 4.1: Comparing old and new features of the institutional environment
Table 5.1: Complete list of EID of provinces and municipalities (2003)
Table 5.2: The EDI of Guangdong and Shanxi
Table 5.3: The categories of cases
Table 5.4: Profile of the selected cases
Table 5.5: Research interviewees
Table 6.1: Statistics of secondary school in Taiyuan
Table 6.2: Number of school by level and type in Shenzhen (1985–2007)
Table 6.3: Statistics of minban secondary schools in Taiyuan
Table 6.4: Comparisons of Taiyuan and Shenzhen
Table 6.5: Income of Taiyuan and Shenzhen (1989-2007)
Table 7.1: The tuition fees and value of scholarships at School M (2008)
Table 7.2: Revenue of School M (2003 & 2004)
Table7.3: The tuition fees and value of scholarships at School X (2008)
Table7.4: Scholarships for returning students at School X (2008)
Table 7.5: Revenue of School X
Table 7.6: Timetable of School X in the winter semester (Monday to Friday)
Table 7.7: The tuition fees at School D
Table 7.8: The revenues of School Q (2007 & 2008)
Table 7.9: The timetable for student recruitment (Grade 7) to School Q in 2009
Table 7.10: Tuition fees of School Y (2009)
Table 7.11: Four stages of converted school experimentation
Table 8.1:Contextual and institutional sources of change agents
Table 8.2: Typologies of minban schools and local institutional environments
Table 9.1: The roles defined by local governments
Table 9.2: The extent of local government control
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The framework of new institutionalism

Figure 3.1: Annual growth rate of minban secondary schools
Figure 4.1: Framework of research
Figure 6.1: Location of Taiyuan Municipality within Shanxi
Figure 6.2: Location of Shenzhen within Guangdong
Figure 6.3: Resident population in Shenzhen (1979-2007)
Figure 8.1: Modes of control and modal teacher types
Figure 9.1: The differential order of minban schools
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book was derived from my doctoral thesis research undertaken at The
City University of Hong Kong from 2007 to 2010. I owe my sincere
gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. CHAN, Kwok Hong Raymond, whose
professional knowledge and patient guidance have led me so far in my
academic pursuits. His insightful ideas and helpful commentaries on my
papers and the drafts of my thesis have been a source of inspiration. He
provides endless encouragement, supporting the formation of both an
intellectual mind and an integrated personality. He will always be my role
model, an example of an excellent researcher and a responsible family and
community member.
I am particularly grateful to my panel members, Dr. LEUNG, Kwan Kwok,

and Dr. HO, Wing Chung. They supplied much-needed advice, creative
commentary and new perspectives towards my research. I would also like
to express my gratitude to the panel of examiners including Dr. LAU,
Kwok Yu, Dr. NGAN, Man Hung Raymond and Prof. NGOK, King Lun,
whose constructive comments and critiques improved my dissertation
significantly.
My gratitude also goes to the principals, teachers and students of minban

schools in mainland China for welcoming me into their lives and sharing
their thoughts with me. My thanks, as well, to the officials in Taiyuan and
Shenzhen, who helped me to arrange my fieldwork, contact relevant
schools and access valuable documents and information.
I am grateful to City University of Hong Kong for providing me with a

scholarship and other financial support for collecting data and attending
international conferences. I wish to thank the teachers and staff of the
Department of Applied Social Studies in City University of Hong Kong.
I will also take this opportunity to thank my mother, LI Guoai, my father,

WANG Caiwang, and my little sister, WANG Min, from whom I derive
endless strength and courage. Not only did my mother and father provide
me with ample financial support during my carefree childhood and
adolescent years, but they also passed on to me their passion for life and
Managing Institutions xi
resilience in the face of adversity. Without their love, patience and

intimate familial ties, I could not have reached this point. My little sister
accompanied me to Hong Kong and has shown me how to balance my
work and life. To these family members, I owe my deepest love and
gratitude.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my husband, Mr. Que Hongyu.
His love encourages me to pursue truth and happiness in the academic
world and daily life. This winter, our first baby will join us. Love made me
grow up.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Minban education in contemporary China

Dramatic changes have taken place in China, including upheavals in the
social service sector. The ‘over-burdened’ government has retreated from
the role of omnipotent provider to that of regulator. The provision of
education is one of the many areas demonstrating the effects of these
changes. With a budget unable to meet increasing demands, education has
undergone the following radical changes in recent years: market
deregulation; privatization and marketization of education services;
promotion of competition among schools; empowerment of parents and
students, as consumers, to make choices; and diversification of income
sources as a result of the transfer of funding from the state to society (Mok,
1997a; 1997b; Yan & Lin, 2004).
The re-emergence of minban schools is a notable phenomenon. The new

constraints on the government’s role allowed individuals and private
companies to invest in education. The provision of education is no longer
under government monopoly. The number of minban secondary schools
increased from 1, 280 in 1994 to 10,547 in 2007, and their enrollment also
grew dramatically, from 247,484 in 1994 to 9, 162,738 in 2007 (State
Education Commission, 1995; Ministry of Education, 2008) (see Table
1.1). The number of minban schools increased almost eight-fold and the
number of students multiplied by 37. Today’s minban schools are
characterized by their diversification, uneven development across
provinces, market-orientation, and multiple owners (Yan & Lin, 2004).
Although the number of minban schools and their enrollment have

increased rapidly (see Table 1.2), they still represent a fraction of the total
number of schools: minban junior secondary schools represent only 7.58
per cent of all junior secondary school, and minban senior secondary
schools, only 19.78 per cent of all senior secondary school in 2007.
2 Chapter One
Table 1.1: Development of minban schools (1994–2007)
Secondary education Primary education

Year Schools Enrollment Graduates Full-time Schools Enrollment Graduates Full-time
teachers teachers
1994 1, 280 247,484 35,416 8,621 1,078 203,621 6, 257 12, 255
1995 1,694 379,537 45,473 13,471 1,465 284,513 11,942 16, 146
1996 2,035 514,002 80, 212 20,490 1,453 463, 220 21, 197 22, 140
1997 2,391 729,511 116,466 29,075 1,806 522, 284 34,055 28,802
1998 3,045 1,013,979 186,940 41, 114 2,504 727,645 54,809 28,448
1999 3,543 1,345, 192 248,491 56,381 3, 264 976,862 95,397 37,649
2000 4,315 1,798,099 313,351 77,611 4,341 1,308,061 141, 133 50,777
2001 5,611 2,705,962 486, 272 133,906 4,846 1,818,438 214,356 76, 122
2002 6,447 3,529,595 683,468 177,431 5, 122 2, 221,370 300,627 95,084
2003 7,765 4,796,017 979,422 238,885 5,676 2,749,341 374,728 117, 239
2004 8,829 6, 118,550 1, 294,448 290,876 6,047 3, 283, 213 434, 241 139,432
2005 9,825 7,548, 237 1,771,487 350, 204 6, 242 3,889,404 553,533 164,465
2006 10,366 8,447,424 2, 204, 290 393, 112 6, 161 4, 120,907 643, 121 179,836
2007 10,547 9, 162,738 2,534, 125 424,893 5,798 4,487,915 689,659 195,526
Sources: State Education Commission, 1995-1997; Ministry of Education, 1998-2008.
Introduction 3
Table 1.2: Statistics on secondary schools, students and graduates by operator (2007)
Items Schools % Total % Graduates %

(unit) enrollment (person)
(person)
Junior secondary school – total 59, 109 100 57, 208,992 100 19,568,428 100
Operated by education departments and 53,556 90.61 52,402,578 91.60 18, 120,713 92.60
collectives
Operated by private institutions 4,482 7.58 4, 125,485 7.21 1, 223,441 6.25
Operated by other departments 1,071 1.81 680,929 1.19 224, 274 1.15
Senior secondary school – total 15,681 100 25, 224,008 100 7,883, 143 100
Operated by education departments and 12, 122 77.30 22,391,994 88.77 7,032,825 89.21
collectives
Operated by private institutions 3, 101 19.78 2,459,561 9.75 724, 275 9.19
Operated by other departments 458 2.92 372,453 1.48 126,043 1.60
Source: Ministry of Education, 2008

4 Chapter One
The perception of education as a public good is long-standing. China’s

one-child policy encourages parents to pay more attention to their child’s
education (Lin, 1999). Educational credentials and skills are key to
employment, social status and promotion. In an increasingly knowledge-
dependent economy, schools ‘take on a more central role in society’s
institutional fabric, and their performance has definite repercussions
throughout society’ (Meyer & Rowan, 2006: 2).
However, as Labaree observes, ‘in an era when markets are triumphant

and governments are in retreat, we find that the favored solution to every
public problem is to privatize it’: the new directives ‘let market work
things out through the magic of competition (for providers) and choice (for
consumers)’ (2000: 111). In China, privatization, together with market
reform, is considered a feasible solution to the problems in the educational
system.
As the product of privatization and marketization, minban schools are not

only educational entities but also entrepreneurial organizations. According
to the bureaucratic paradigm, minban schools should ‘present themselves
not as units serving education but as organizations that embody
educational purpose in their collective structure’ (Meyer & Rowan, 1978:
92). As a vehicle of public good, minban schools should supply education
to children, and, occasionally, some obtain government funding. Although
minban schools can operate at a profit like businesses, they are also
subject to requirements ensuring access and accountability, which ensure
that the school functions as a public service.
As a result of China’s current transitions, the requirements of minban schools

are complex. The re-emergence of market principles, the decentralization of
government and segmentation of its power and authority, and the
investment-oriented culture have created a complicated context for minban
schools. The institutional environment of minban schools has shifted
‘from monistic to pluralistic’ (Meyer & Rowan, 2006: 2):
Unlike most organizations, which exist in the service of more narrow and
clearly defined purposes, educational organizations are deeply anchored in
a society’s finely spun web of norms and expectations, tied down by
myriads of constituents holding myriads of expectations. (Meyer,
2006:216)
Given this pluralism, it is no surprise that the definition of minban schools

is ambiguous and complex. Different forms of minban schools co-exist.
Introduction 5
Many parties—regulators, investors, principals, teachers and parents—

influence the operations of the various forms of minban schools.
In Mainland China, most research on minban schools focuses on the

inequalities between minban and public schools: the former are considered
to be less developed and to offer a lower quality of education due to their
lack of state support (Wu, 1996; Zhang, 2003). The implications of this
situation require further research, especially with regard to these schools’
operation at the organizational and institutional level.
The existing research treats minban schools as closed organizations,

influenced by various internal or external factors. There is no systematic
analysis that locates the various types of minban schools in the minban
institutional environment. This study is intended to enrich our understanding
of the minban school’s institutional environment and to explore the
operation of the minban school at the organizational and individual level. It
also points to differences between regions and school types, and provides an
empirically based account of the factors contributing to these differences.
Given this background and context, and informed by the concepts of new
institutionalism, the major questions this study addresses are as follows:
1) In light of the transitional institutional context, what are the

features of the new environment in which minban schools, as
organizations, operate and interact with other institutions?
2) Which strategies are adopted by different types of minban schools

to succeed in this new institutional environment?
The findings of this study offer a better understanding of school reform,

privatization, marketization, school administration and management in
Mainland China.
The study focuses on secondary education (both junior and senior) because
it is the most important stage of schooling in terms of students’ transition
to college and employment. Central and local governments apply different
regulations and policies for the junior and senior phases because only the
junior phase is compulsory. This study concentrates on minban schools
that offer both junior and senior secondary education, as they provide a
more comprehensive picture of how the school manages within a
pluralistic institutional context.
6 Chapter One
1.2 Definition of key concepts

1.2.1 Minban secondary schools
The minban schools have been called private schools, non-governmental
schools, people- and agency-run schools, and community schools (Lin,
1999; 2007). These terms are often used interchangeably in government
policies and academic studies. The variety of titles reflects the controversial
nature of minban schools in a socialist system (Zhu & Ip, 2002).
In China, the term ‘private school’ has a different definition than it does in
other countries due to the country’s unique political context. From the
1950s to the 1980s, ‘private’ was the opposite of ‘public’: while ‘public’
denotes power and legitimacy, ‘private’ is politically sensitive term, rarely
used by schools and government, referring to individual assets. Today,
minban suggests part of the collective, not ‘bad’ private capital.
The Provisional Regulations on the Non-State Higher Educational Sector

first used the term minban in 1993. In 1997, the Regulation on Schools
Run by Social Forces noted the phenomenon of ‘businesses and government
organizations, social groups and other social organizations and individuals,
using non-government educational financial resources, to provide
schooling and other forms of education’. On December 28, 2002, the
National People’s Congress issued the Minban Education Promotion Law,
which defines minban education as ‘schools or educational institutions that
are run by social organizations other than state organizations, or
individuals through non-fiscal educational funds’. Minban education is
funded and owned by the minban sector, regulated by the government
through education policies, and administered by central and local
governments.
Despite these definitions, the meaning of minban school remains

ambiguous. Various forms of minban schools co-exist. One method of
categorization is based on the class background of the students recruited:
schools for children from rich families and schools for children of migrant
laborers.
Minban schools can also be distinguished by their developmental history:

some are newly established by private capital, while others have been
converted from public schools. If defined by type of ownership, the former
include those wholly owned by private capital or by public-private joint
ventures. The latter are usually the ‘offspring’ of the existing public
Introduction 7
schools, which are completely converted, partially converted or converted

to public-private joint-venture schools (i.e., school resources, such as
premises, are owned by the public but entrusted to a non-state organization
to operate).
With the exception of the schools wholly owned by private capital and
operating independently, the minban schools have some level of public
involvement in their ownership and operation (Chan & Wang, 2009).
Every minban school is located in the spectrum between private and public.
From the new institutional perspective, the minban school is a ‘hybrid
organization’, possessing both characteristics of both a school and a
business.
Theoretically, ‘the ultimate feature of private schools is that they possess a

high degree of autonomy’ (Lin & Du, 1996), although they are still under
general supervision of the state (Cheng & DeLany, 1999:50).One would
assume that they would have greater autonomy than the public schools
because, on paper, they can determine their own educational goals,
curriculum, teaching approaches, management model, school development
plan and administrative structure (Ding, 2007; Lin, 2007).
1.2.2 Institutions
Since this study proposes to adopt new institutional theory to explore the
operation of minban schools, the ‘newness’ of this theory should be
explained. Summarizing earlier studies on institutional theory, Scott
argues,
Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and

activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions
are transported by various carriers—cultures, structures, and routines—and
they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction. (Scott, 1995:33)
And, in a later work, he continues, ‘institutions are multifaceted, durable

social structures, made up of symbolic elements, social activities, and
material resources’ (2001: 49).
Scott’s definitions require some elaboration. First, an institution is a ‘dual’

social structure (structural arrangement), as outlined by Giddens
(1984)—a social structure that involves the patterning of social activities
and relations through time and across space. These structures are both
product and platform of social action, and ‘both the medium and the
8 Chapter One
outcome of the practices they recursively organize’ (Giddens, 1984: 25).

Second, institutions have various facets—regulative, normative and
cultural-cognitive—which impose certain constraints. Third, the definition
of an institution must encompass its associated behavior and material
resources (Scott, 2001:49). Rules and norms, if they are to be effective,
must be backed with sanctioning power (Scott, 2008: 49). Material
resources in social structure take into account asymmetries of power (Scott,
2001: 50). Fourth, institutions exhibit distinctive properties, such as the
tendency to maintain, to change (Jepperson, 1991), and to reproduce
(Zucker, 1977). The institution is both a ‘property’ and a ‘process’ (Scott,
2008: 50).
New institutional theory treats organizations as operating in an environment

consisting of institutional factors. Each institutional factor influences and
is influenced by the broader environment. Organizations manage
institutional factors in order to survive in the broader environment. In this
context, institutional environment refers to ‘multiple types of actors,
individual and collective, their beliefs and logics of action, governance
mechanisms, and structuration processes’ (Scott et al., 1996: 3). In the
minban school institutional environment, minban schools manage
institutional factors—regulative, normative and cognitive—in order to
survive and thrive.
1.3 Structure of the study

In Chapter 1, we have outlined the aims of this study and provided an
introduction to the background and meaning of minban schools in China.
Chapter 2 introduces the theory of new institutionalism. Chapter 3
provides a description of the government policies concerning minban
education. Chapter 4 reviews the institutional environment of minban
education in China. Chapter 5 provides a description and rationale for the
methodology and design of the study. Chapter 6 examines the local
institutional environment of Taiyuan and Shenzhen. Chapter 7 gives a
detailed account of the institutional environment for eight minban school
cases. Chapter 8 explains the strategies adopted by different types of
minban schools to manage the institutions. Chapter 9 summarizes the
major findings of the study, explains its limitations and proposes a future
research agenda.
CHAPTER TWO
THE THEORY OF NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
2.1 New institutionalism

Since their recent emergence, minban schools have been the focus of
considerable research. Some studies focus on the ownership of schools and
the effects of marketization and privatization reforms on education (Wen,
2003; Wu et al., 2004). Others explore the issues of freedom, choice, and
equality as the results of such reforms (Bi, 1994; Cheng & DeLany, 1999).
They try to determine whether minban education provides more choices
for parents and students and whether minban schools improve the equality
and efficiency of education provision (public schools have long been
criticized as too bureaucratic).
These current studies pay little attention, however, to the practices of

minban schools. There is insufficient data to give an accurate analysis of
the operation of minban schools in their constantly changing context. The
emergence of minban schools could be explained by the demand for
alternative forms of education from parents and students. Theoretically,
there is a dynamic relationship between a school as an organization and its
institutional environment. In that sense, new institutionalism could supply
us with a useful perspective and framework to analyze the interaction
between a minban school and the institutional environment surrounding it.
The new institutionalism arose in the mid-1970s. Its history can be traced
to the early studies of the concept of the ‘institution’. New institutionalism
expanded the meaning of institution, based on the recognition that history
is not static and that ‘institutions themselves are a moving target’ (Scott,
2001: 126). The resurgence of interest in institutions represented an
attempt to ‘provide fresh answer to old questions about how social choices
are shaped, mediated, and channeled by institutional arrangements’
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991:2).
10 Chapter Two
The new institutionalism encompasses various approaches. Hall and Taylor

(1996) suggest that it incorporates three distinct schools of thought:
historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and sociological
institutionalism. Peters (1999) identifies seven categories of institutionalism:
normative, rational choice, historical, empirical, international, sociological
and network. All these approaches aim to draw attention to the role that
institutions play in the construction of social and political outcomes (Hall
& Taylor, 1996). To some extent, the researchers ‘vary in assumptions
made about rationality of actors and salience of institutional elements’
(Scott, 2001: 108).
New institutionalists describe the organizational environment as an open

system. While turning their attention to the impact of institution upon
organization, they are also concerned with the interaction between
institutions and organizations. Unlike earlier theories, which focused on
technical demands and resource dependencies, new institutionalism
suggests that formal organizational structures are influenced by various
institutional forces, including rational myths, knowledge legitimized by
the educational system, professions, public opinion and the law (Powell,
2007). These influences were neglected by earlier organizational theories
such as contingency theory, resource dependency and population ecology.
The new institutionalism revisits the idea of context-bound rationality

(Nee, 1998: xv) and emphasizes an organization’s ‘social fitness’ in
accordance with the principle of appropriateness (March, 1981; Mezias,
1995). It focuses on ‘the symbolic aspects of organizations and their
environments’ (Scott, 1987:507), as well as on the cognitive dimension of
enterprises (Zucker, 1977), especially the imposition and emergent nature
of the cognitive process (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan,
1977; Mezias, 1995). Cultural embeddedness is the main feature of
sociological institutionalism (Hall & Taylor, 1996). Practices that are taken
for granted as ‘the way we do these things’ (Scott, 2001:57) are the focus
of the new institutionalism in organizational sociology (DiMaggio, 1997;
Johnson et al., 2006).
The new institutionalism provides an expanded and more sophisticated

definition of its subject matter, with more explicit and varied theoretical
frameworks (Lowndes, 2002:91). It allows for a more subtle analysis of
the constraints arising from the interlocking roles of informal and formal
practices (Nee, 1998: xvi). By rejecting functional explanations, new
institutionalism pays attention to ‘the ways in which actions are structured
The Theory of New Institutionalism 11
and order made possible by shared systems of rules that both constrain the
inclination and capacity of actors to optimize as well as privilege some
groups whose interests are secured by prevailing rewards and sanctions’
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991: 11).
2.2 Comparing old and new institutionalism

Although scholars such as Selznick questioned the wisdom of drawing a
sharp line between the ‘old’ institutionalism and the ‘new’ institutionalism
(1996:270), it is illuminating to point out some of their differences.
DiMaggio and Powell (1991:12) note that new institutionalism can trace
its root to the ‘old institutionalism’ of Selznick and his associates
(Selznick, 1949; 1957). Selznick (1957) maintains that ‘institutionalization
is a process’:
It is something that happens to an organization over time, reflecting the

organization’s own distinctive history, the people who have been in it, the
groups it embodies and the vested interests they have created, and the way
it has adapted to its environment. … ‘To institutionalize’ is to infuse with
value beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand (1957:16-17).
Perrow (1986) argues that Selznick and his associates offer an exposé of
organizations by showing that they are not rational entities but vehicles for
hidden values. Unlike the old institutionalism, which emphasized the value
and norms, the new institutionalism focuses on classifications, routines,
scripts, and schema. Rather than assuming that the environment is
co-opted by organization (as the old institutionalism maintained), the new
institutionalism holds that the environment ‘penetrated the organization,
creating the lenses through which actors view the world and the very
categories of structure, action, and thought (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991:
13).
Both the old and new approaches cast doubt on the ‘rational actor’ model
of organization. They focus on the relationship between organizations and
their institutional environments and emphasize the role of culture in
shaping organizational reality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991: 12). There remain,
however, significant differences between the old and new institutional
theories:
The shifts of the theoretical focus from object-relations to cognitive theory,

from cathexis to ontological anxiety, from discursive to practical reason,
from internalization to imitation, from commitment to ethnomethodological
12 Chapter Two
trust, from sanctioning to ad hocing, from norms to scripts and schemas,

from values to accounts, from consistency and integration to loose
coupling, and from roles to routines have quite naturally altered the
questions that students of organization have asked and the kinds of answers
they have offered (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991: 26-27).
Subsequent scholars have charted the connections between institutions and

organizations. Lowndes suggests that the tenets of institutionalism ‘are
best represented in terms of movements along six analytical continua:
1) from a focus on organizations to a focus on rules;

2) from a formal to an informal conception of institutions;
3) from a static to a dynamic concept of institutions;
4) from submerged values to a value-critical stance;
5) from a holistic to a disaggregated conception of institutions; and
6) from independence to embeddedness.’ (2002: 97)
The new institutionalism explains the dynamic interaction between

institution and organization. Zucker and Darby (2005) suggest that the
early work in this field followed three approaches: macro (e.g., Meyer &
Rowan, 1977), micro (e.g., Zucker, 1977) and middle-of–the-road (e.g.,
DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The macro approach focuses on the
‘institutional effects’ that influence, constrain and empower organizations;
the micro approach emphasizes the interaction of organizations and actors
to produce and reproduce the institutions; and the third approach integrates
the previous two perspectives, positing a cycle of interactions between
institutions and organizations.
As the new institutional theory has matured, it has followed various

tangents, each geared to a particular field of research. Scott argues that the
new institutionalism has moved
1) from looser to tighter conceptualizations of institutions and their

distinctive features;
2) from determinant to interactive arguments;
3) from assertions to evidence;
4) from organization-centric to field-level approaches;
5) from institutional stability to institutional change;
6) from institutions as irrational influences to institutions as frameworks
for rational action. (2008: 215–217)
Looking over the history of scholarship, we can observe the ‘spiral’

development of new institutional theory. There is no sharp timeline
distinguishing the shift from the old to the new institutionalism. Instead,
against the backdrop of the old institutionalism, the new institutionalism
constructs a framework to analyze the relationships among institutions,
organizations and actors. The differences among the various approaches to
institutionalism are compared in Table 2.1.
As shown in Table 2.1, the old institutionalism treated conflicts of interest

as central issues and held that the vested interests of actors within
organizations were the source of inertia. In contrast, the macro and micro
approaches of the new institutionalism put the conflict of interest in an
assertive peripheral position: the source of inertia is legitimacy. The macro
approach emphasizes explicit, exogenous legitimacy, while the micro
approach is more concerned with the implicit, endogenous interactions
intended to confer legitimacy. Each approach focuses on a specific part of
a larger issue and, hence, neither can provide a complete picture of the
dynamic relationship between institutions and organizations in producing
legitimacy.
The middle-of-the-road approach, suggested by DiMaggio and Powell

(1983), emphasizes the interactive relationship between institutions and
organizations, and seeks to reveal the particular combination of top-down
and bottom-up influence, instead of merely focusing on the macro or
micro level. It identifies the source of inertia as the intrinsic ambiguity of
institutions: however, there are potential and continuous conflicts, which
may cause gradual or radical institutional change.
The middle-of-the-road approach assumes that vested interests are

inevitable but their influence is constrained by objective evidence. It
emphasizes that the institution acts as a framework for rational action.
Unlike the macro approach, it is based on rationality, and, unlike the micro
approach, it stresses institutionalized rationality. The macro and micro
approach hold that institutionalization is taken for granted, but the
middle-of-the-road approach emphasizes the conscious awareness and
evaluation of actors. The middle-of-the-way approach accentuates the
‘incremental structuration processes’ (Giddens, 1984), and offers a
‘productive framework for examining the interplay between these forces’
(Scott, 2008: 77).
14 Chapter Two
Table 2.1: Comparison of approaches
Old New institutionalism

institution-
Macro Micro Middle-of-the-
alism
approach approach road approach
Goals Displaced Ambiguous Ambiguous Ambiguous
Conflicts Central Assertive Assertive Inevitable but the
of interest Peripheral Peripheral extent in
accordance with
evidence
Source Vested Explicit, Implicit, Intrinsic
of inertia interests exogenous endogenous ambiguity of
Legitimacy interaction institutions
imperative produce & potential and
legitimacy continuous
conflict
Analysis Within Top-down Bottom-up Interplay between
approach organization top-down and
bottom-up
Focus Informal Institutional Actor Interactive
of theory structure of effects of construction progress between
organization in field, sector of field, sector institution and
a local or society or society organization
community
environment
Structural Informal Symbolic Actors’ Dual structuration
emphasis structure and role of interaction; processes
object-relations formal construct and
structure; interpret
taken-for- structure
granted
reality
Rationality Constrained In opposition Institutionaliz Institution as
rationality or as ed rationality frameworks for
alternatives rational action
Nature of Co-optation Constitutive Interpretively Incremental

embeddedness embedded in embedded in constructive embedded
local field, sectorembedded in
community or society organizational
field
Cognitive Commitment Institutional- Taken for Constitutive
basis of order ized myth grantedness schema
Source: adapted from Powell & DiMaggio, 1991: 13; Scott, 2008.
2.3 New institutionalism in organization:

The theoretical cycle
New institutionalists seek to explain the interactive process between
organizations and institutions, and to understand the organizational
trade-offs involved in adopting one form of institution to the exclusion of
others (Meyer & Rowan, 2006:4). Scott (2008) summarizes the most
recent version of institutionalism as follow:
1) Institutionalists eschew a totalistic or monolithic view of

organizational and societal structures and process;
2) Institutionalists insist on the importance of nonlocal (as well as local)
forces shaping organizations; have rediscovered the important role
played by ideas, specifically, and symbolic elements, generally, in the
functioning of organizations;
3) Institutionalists accord more attention to types of effects occurring
over longer time period;
4) Closely related to this concern with time, institutionalists also
accord more attention to an examination of social mechanisms;
5) Institutionalists embrace research designs that support attention to
examining the interdependence of factors operating at multiple levels
to affect the outcomes of interest. (Scott, 2008: 211–214)
The new institutionalism has broadened the scope of its application and its
explanatory power. As shown in Table 2.1, researchers may take either the
environment or organization as their unit of analysis and may submit them
to a macro or micro approach. Such limited approaches will necessarily
neglect some important facets and, therefore, do not provide a
comprehensive view. Scott notes that ‘Studies of top-down structuration
processes, together with equal attention to bottom-up processes, have
illuminated important facets of organizational life’ (2008: 216).
The introduction of an ‘organizational field’ is an important contribution:

it fills the gap between the macro- and micro-level analyses. The
‘organizational field’ is an appropriate platform for an analysis of the
minban schools because these schools are influenced both by the macro
environment and micro-level agencies.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define the organizational field as ‘those

organizations, in the aggregate, [that] constitute a recognized area of
institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory
16 Chapter Two
agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products’

(1983: 148). DiMaggio (1986: 337) asserts that the organizational field
bridges the organizational and societal spheres. It harnesses the benefits of
the ‘mesolevel of theorizing’ (Scott, 2008: 182). The interactions and
mutual relationship between institutions and organizations form the
analytical cycle of new institutionalism (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: The framework of new institutionalism
2.3.1 Institutions influencing organizations

2.3.1.1 Institutional effects
The new institutionalism (particularly when it adopts the macro approach)

examines the way in which rules, norms and shared beliefs influence
organizational forms and practices. It maintains that formal structures are
highly institutionalized, and function as myths and ceremonies shaping
and influencing organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Formal structures
have symbolic as well as practical properties (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994),
and institutions impose constraints by setting boundaries between
legitimate and illegitimate activities (Scott, 2001: 50). At the same time,
institutions also empower organizations by providing guidelines, resources
and informational support (Langlois, 1986) and by acting as forecasters.
Meyer and Rowan (1977) show how symbolic institutionalized beliefs and
rules—the myths embedded in the institutional environment—can affect
the formal structure of organization. Organizations incorporate legitimized
standards and employ external and ceremonial assessment criteria to
define the value of structural elements. They depend on externally fixed
institutions to reduce turbulence and maintain stability: ‘Independent of
their productive efficiency, organizations which exist in highly elaborated
institutional environments and succeed in becoming isomorphic with these
environments gain the legitimacy and resources needed to survive’ (Meyer
& Rowan, 1977: 352).
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that a highly structured organizational

field offers a context in which organizations can deal with uncertainty and
constraint, leaded to homogeneity in structure and culture.
Meyer and Scott (1983) define legitimacy as ‘the degree of cultural

support for an organization—the extent to which the array of established
cultural accounts provide explanations for its existence’ (1983: 201). Scott
emphasizes that explanations, justifications and meaningful accounts are
more likely to be imported from the environment than to be manufactured
and produced from within the organization (1991: 170). As Suchman
(1995) observes, ‘legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that
the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some
socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’
(1995: 574). Legitimacy is ‘not a commodity to be possessed or exchanged
but a condition reflecting perceived consonance with relevant rules and
laws, normative supports, or alignment with cultural-cognitive frameworks’
(Scott, 2008: 59–60).
Legitimacy is ‘a symbolic value to be displayed in a manner such that it is

visible to outsiders’ (Scott, 2008: 60). Legitimacy can be defined as
widespread consensual beliefs about how things should be. It creates
strong expectations of what is likely to happen in a particular situation. As
with external controls, ‘legitimacy is a conferred status to enhance the
survival value of organization which accepts it’ (Mezias, 1995: 177).
18 Chapter Two
Sociological institutionalism assumes that existing institutions affect not

only preferences but also individual identity and self-image (Oliver &
Mossialos, 2005). The institution is internalized and imprinted on the
organization and actors. Social action is always grounded in social
contexts that specify valued ends and appropriate means; the reasonableness
of an action is ensured by taking into account these social rules and
guidelines for behavior (Scott, 2001: 68). When constitutive rules are
recognized, individual behavior is often seen to reflect external definitions
rather that internal intentions (Scott, 2001: 65).
The new institutionalism asserts that the institutional environment

definitely has an effect on an organization; however, as Scott (1991) notes,
researchers in the field ask questions about how, why, and where
organizational changes occur (1991: 174). Scott offers the following seven
processes: the imposition of organizational structure, the authorization of
organizational structure, the inducement of organizational structure, the
acquisition of organizational structure, the imprinting of organizational
structure, the incorporation of environmental structure, and the shared
cultural belief system (1991: 181). It is notable that the incorporation
perspective assumes that organizations mirror or replicate salient aspects
of environmental differentiation in their own structures. This incorporation
is adaptive and unplanned (Scott, 1991: 179–180).
Unlike Scott (1991) who views culture as an institution, Jepperson (1991)

argues that culture is merely a vehicle of institutionalization, like formal
organizations and regimes. Furthermore, Jepperson points out that the
tenets of new institutionalism ‘not only stress the structuring quality of
rules or frameworks, but also attribute causal import to the particular
substantive contents of the rules invoked—frames are not just formal
structures’ (1991: 156).
2.3.1.2 Multiple institutions and mechanisms
Faced with the complexity of the institutional environment and armed with
new institutional theory, scholars have realized that institutions are various
and ambiguous, and, therefore, have complex effects on organizations.
The early literature of new institutionalism focused on explaining the

convergence of organizational structures and processes. Increasing
isomorphism was taken to be the central indicator of institutional processes
at work (Scott, 2001). The homogenized pressures of the holistic
environment ensure that similar influences pervade different types of

organizations. Nevertheless, there is evidence that organizational structures
and practices can be diverse even in similar environments (Meyer et al.,
1992).
Meyer and Rowan (1977) maintain that ‘norms of rationality are not
simply general values. They exist in much more specific and powerful
ways in the rules, understandings and meanings attached to institutionalized
social structures’ (1977: 343). Scott, similarly, notes ‘there is not one but
many institutional environments and that some would-be sources of
rationalized myths may be in competition if not conflict’ (1991: 167).
Although organizations confront and are shaped by institutions, these
institutional systems are not necessarily unified, monolithic or coherent
(Scott, 2001: 160; 208).
Meyer and Scott (1983) observe that the complex, fragmented

environment of today’s organizations (under various authorities and
funded by several sources) requires more sophisticated internal
administrative structures. Powell’s (1988) study of a scholarly publishing
house and a public TV station and Meyer, Scott and Strang’s (1987) study
of schools and districts reveal the complexity of the organizational
environment: ‘Conflicts in the environment were mapped into the structure
and practices of these organizations’ (Scott, 2001: 161). The effects of
institutional complexity on organization structure leads to increasingly
complicated processes of labor (Oliver & Mossialos, 2005).
The early literature on new institutionalism paid little attention to

rationality, interest, markets, and profits. It did not seem to apply to
market-based and for-profit organizations. For the market-based
organization, conformity is not compelled by formal rules or the threat of
delegitimization but by a concern for profitability and survival in a
competitive market (Meyer et al., 1992: 63).
Some scholars did not follow Meyer and Rowan (1977) who held that
institutionalized myths and categorical rules were separate from, and even
conflicted with, efficiency. Nor did they subscribe to the view of
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) that structural change was not primarily
driven by competition or by the need for efficiency. These scholars
undertook empirical studies of organizations and concluded that the
adoption of common organizational structures and practices, occurred
among for-profit firms in competitive industries as well as among
20 Chapter Two
non-profit organizations (Lant & Baum, 1995; Mezias, 1990; Oliver, 1991).
They presented the institution as framed by interest and rationality, not
thwarted by them: ‘Institutional arguments need not be formulated in
opposition to rational or efficiency arguments but are better seen as
complementing and contextualizing’ (Scott, 1987: 509).
Subsequent researchers have emphasized that institutions are often

fragmented, multiple, varied and in conflict with others and that their
requirements are, therefore, necessarily ambiguous. Scott (1995; 2008)
identified the ‘three pillars of institutions’: regulative, normative, and
cultural-cognitive.
Table 2.2:Three pillars of institutions
Regulative Normative Cognitive

Basis of Expedience Social Taken-for-grantedness
compliance obligation Shared understanding
Basis of Regulative Binding Constitutive schema
order rules expectations
Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Indicators Rules Certification Common beliefs
Laws Accreditation Shared logics of
Sanctions action
Isomorphism
Basis of Legally Morally Comprehensible
legitimacy sanctioned governed Recognizable
Culturally supported
Source: Scott (2008: 51).
The regulative pillar of the institutional environment refers to the explicit

regulative processes prevailing in institutions. They consist of ‘rule-setting,
monitoring, and sanctioning activities’ (Scott, 1995: 35). The normative
pillar refers to institutional effects by focusing on the ‘prescriptive,
evaluative, and obligatory dimensions’ of social life: ‘Normative systems
include both values and norms. Values are conceptions of the preferred or
the desirable together with the construction of the standards to which
existing structures or behavior can be compared and assessed. Norms

specify how things should be done; they define legitimate means to pursue
value ends’ (Scott, 1995: 37). Scott (2008) emphasizes that beliefs are
prescriptions disguised as normative expectations of how specified actors
are presumed to behave (2008: 55).The normative pillar focuses social
obligations, which ‘describe behavior as drive by rules is to see action as a
matching of a situation to the demands of a position’ (March & Olsen,
1989: 23). The cognitive pillar refers to ‘the shared conceptions that
constitute the nature of reality and the frames through which meaning is
made’ (Scott, 2008: 57).
The three pillars of institutions constitute a continuum moving ‘from the

conscious to the unconscious, from the legally enforced to the taken for
granted’ (Hoffman, 1997: 36). The three pillars are recognized as
constituting or supporting institutions (Scott, 2008: 51).
Scott emphasizes that ‘coercive power is legitimated by a normative

framework that both supports and constrains the exercise of power … The
regulative and normative pillars can be mutually reinforcing’ (Scott, 2008:
53). For example, ‘attention to the regulative aspects of institutions creates
renewed interest in the role of state: as rule maker, referee, and enforcer’
(Scott, 2008: 53), but ‘law are sufficiently controversial or ambiguous that
they do not provide clear prescriptions for conduct’ (Scott, 2008: 54).
In the organizational field, appropriateness is authorized in various ways:

‘The boundaries of organizational fields are often vague or weak, allowing
alternative logics to penetrate and support divergent models of behavior’
(Scott, 1987: 507–508). These blurred boundaries contribute to ‘difference
among organizations in their response to the same environment’ (Scott,
2001: 161). The uncertain, turbulent and changing environments provide
organizations with a certain freedom to respond. Dorado (2005) identifies
three types of organizational fields: opportunity opaque, opportunity
transparent, and opportunity hazy. ‘Opportunity’ refers to the likelihood
that an organizational field permits institutional combination and gains
support and acceptance for the combination (Dorado, 2005: 404).
22 Chapter Two
2.3.2 Organizations’ response to institutions

2.3.2.1 Organizations’ and actors’ responses
Early researchers in the field of institutionalism maintained that

organizations influenced and were influenced by institutions. However,
they did not address questions such as where institutions come from and
how are they constructed. Their writings suggest that institutions are
constructed by means of an unconscious process: they ‘are not created by
the purposeful actions of interest-based agents, but rather emerge from the
collective sense-making and problem-solving behavior of actors
confronting similar situations’ (Scott, 2008: 95). The macro-perspective
institutionalists prefer to focus on the structure of environments,
examining how meanings become taken for granted (Fligstein, 1996: 397)
and the analytic autonomy of the macro-structures (DiMaggio & Powell,
1991:16). This analysis provides a better account of institutional stability
than of institutional change (Lowndes, 2002: 105). Early research treated
institutions as external factors, which determined outcomes (Scott, 2001:
209): institutions were considered independent variables that explained
organizational structure and behavior. It is now apparent that institutions
themselves ‘are also the factors that require explanation’ (Peters, 1999:
150). From this perspective, the response of organizations and actors to
institutional environment within organizational field should receive more
attention.
Silverman (1971) notes that people attach meanings to situations, then

people act and react according to the interpretations suggested by these
meanings. Organizational analysis should be ‘bringing agency back in’
(DiMaggio, 1988).
Institutionalized behaviors depend on individuals and collectives within

the institutionalized environment sharing similar beliefs about the meaning
of their actions (Zucker, 1977). The organization is not a vacuum; it is
formed by actors: ‘Rules, norms, and meanings arise in interaction, and
they are preserved and modified by human behavior’ (Scott, 2001:49).
Organizations and actors produce and reproduce institutional arrangements.
Due attention has to be given to the ‘reemergence of the role that micro
processes have in creating macro-level phenomena’ (Lant & Baum, 1995:
15).
Organizations incorporate institutionalized practices and procedures in

order to increase their legitimacy and survival prospects (Meyer & Rowan,
1977). Although they appreciate the influence of institutions, Meyer and
Rowan propose that the activities of organizations in response institutions
create a more complex interaction that can be used to resolve conflicts
between formal rules and efficiency (1977). Jepperson (1991: 158) notes
that the concept of institutionalization is opposed to the concept of action.
Actors in modern polity are, themselves, constructed institutions
(Jepperson & Meyer, 1991). As Scott (2001) observes,
Theoretical emphasis has shifted from an examination of institutional

effects, which presumes the existence of an external, all-powerful agent
confronting passive subjects, to the study of institutional process, a view
that makes the action endogenous and recognizes the wide distribution of
agency across actors in most organizational fields. Actors, whether
individual or collective, are recognized to exercise agency, varying in force
among actors and across situations, but ever-present. (2001:209)
A number of scholars have concluded that organizations do not simply

comply with institutions but actively and strategically react to them
(DiMaggio, 1988; Oliver, 1991; Perrow, 1986; Scott, 2008). Both
individuals and organizations strategize and innovate, thus contributing to
institutional change (Oliver, 1991): ‘The actors have interests (albeit often
institutionally shaped preferences) and powers (institutionally constructed
rights and capacities), behave strategically (conforming and negotiating,
protesting, resisting, hiding from the dictates of regulatory, or symbolic
systems)’ (Scott, 1995: xxi). Organizations strategically respond to
demands and constraints set by the institution but also construct the
‘institution’: ‘Laws and regulations are socially interpreted and find their
force and meaning in interactions between regulators and the regulated’
(Scott, 2001: 169). Oliver (1991) identifies five strategies adopted by
organizations: acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance and
manipulation (1991: 52). Actors are ‘adapting but also adopting the belief
systems, selecting among the relevant rule systems, interpreting and
modifying the meaning applicable to the situation’ (Scott, 1995: xx).
Later research recognized that ‘whether, when, and how organizations

respond depends on their individual characteristics or connections’ (Scott,
2001: 151), as well their location within the field (Scott, 2001: 162). The
attributes, linkages, and reference groups (see Scott, 2008: 164–166) are
associated with an organization’s strategies.
24 Chapter Two
2.3.2.2 Elite organizations and actors
Various actors, collective and individual, participate in the institutional

field. What types of actors have greater opportunities in the organizational
field? How do they interact with institutions? Scott observes that
‘institutional agents come in a variety of guises and include both
individual and collective actors’ (2008: 97). Certain elite actors and
organizations play more important roles in producing and reproducing
institutions; it is interesting to see ‘the way they exert effects on existing
organizations and fields’ (Scott, 2008: 97). DiMaggio (1988) and Powell
(2007) believe that institutionalization is a ‘political’ process since it is
dependent on the power of the actors who strive to steer it.
DiMaggio and Powell point out that the nation-state and the professions
were the primary shapers of modern institutional forms. Streeck and
Schmitter (1985) emphasize that the state is an important actor, given its
‘ability to rely on legitimate coercion’ (1985: 98). In addition to exerting a
significant influence on an individual organization’s structures and
behaviors, the state also shapes the structure of organizational fields (Scott,
2008: 99). Edelman (1992) notes that regulations and legal mandates have
endogenous and exogenous force. Powell (2007) draws attention to the
fact that professionals inside organizations help to construct the law and
create the regulations that shape ‘best’ practice in the field of employment
regulation and workplace rights.
At the same time, as Aldrich (1979: 265) points out, one of the major
factors that organizations must take into account are other related
organizations. Organizations compete not just for resources and customers
but also for political power, institutional legitimacy, and social and economic
success (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983: 150). Within any group of organizations,
there will be elite cadre that are more powerful in shaping the meaning of
the institution. To some extent, the institution is embedded in the
relationship between these organizations. The organizations interact and
influence each other, forging shared beliefs and values. Elite actors and elite
organizations are both constrained and empowered by institutions.
2.3.3 Summary
The new institutional theory offers an expanded perspective on the
analysis of organizations. It challenges the distinction between institutional
explanations and cultural explanations, and redefines ‘culture’ itself as an
‘institution’ (Hall & Taylor, 1996). As Scott (2001) concludes, ‘it has
refocused attention on knowledge and rule systems, and provides valuable
bridges linking the work of scholars past and present and across different
social science perspectives’ (2001: 206–207). Determining the nature of
the dynamic interaction between organizations and institutions is a key
concern of the new institutionalism. Many types of institutions—regulative,
normative and cognitive—influence and are influenced by organizations.
Like any theory, the new institutionalism has not escaped criticism.
Though the theory offers a more vigorous understanding of ‘institution’,
the definitions of ‘institution’ are various and often vague. One reason for
this is that ‘institution lists vary in the emphasis they place on the macro
and micro features of institutions’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Another is
that institutionalism has absorbed too many explanatory variables to be
meaningful (Oliver & Mossialos, 2005: 24). Institutions may have been
defined too loosely. Lowndes points out that it is even misleading to treat
new institutionalism as a theory (2002: 107), as it attempts to include all
that guides individual behavior (Lowndes, 2002: 103). In a similar vein,
Rothstein cautions that if it ‘means everything, then it means nothing’
(Rothstein, 1996).
New institutionalism is better understood as an ‘organising perspective’

(Lowndes, 2002: 107), which ‘provides a map of the subject and signposts
to its central questions’ (Rhodes, 1995: 49). The contribution of new
institutionalism is to provoke ‘questions that might not otherwise occur’
and produce ‘new and fresh insights that other frameworks or perspectives
might not have yielded’ (Judge et al., 1995: 3).
As Rhodes (1995: 56) maintains, ‘no theory is ever true’. New institutionalism
has broadened our perspective, allowing us to discover more interesting
phenomena through empirical and theoretical endeavors. It is broadly
positioned to help us confront important and enduring questions, including
the basis of organizational similarity and differentiation, the relation
between structure and behavior, the role of symbols in social life, and the
tensions between freedom and order (Scott, 2005: 478).
2.4 New institutionalism in the study of education

School is an important organization in contemporary society. Its
mandate—to develop human capital—improves the condition not only of
students but also of their families, the economy and the state. Government
26 Chapter Two
policies and regulations, assumptions about the role of school, teaching

and related professional norms, and the interests of the teachers, parents
and students are all embedded in the structure and ‘organizing’ process of
the institutional environment of the school. Schools can be considered as
the product of factors interacting with each other in an institutional
environment.
As a result of economic and political changes, the institutional environment

of schools has become more complex, which has led to adaptations in the
schools’ structure and operation. The school organization wishes to
achieve a range of goals and to obtain and maintain legitimacy from
stakeholders (Coburn, 2001b; Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Spillane & Burch,
2006).
In the following section, studies in education will be reviewed to

demonstrate how the existing literature supports the claims of theoretical
cycle posited by new institutionalism: that the institutional environment
influences the school as an organization and, in turn, that the school copes
strategically with institutions.
2.4.1 Institutions and mechanisms in the field of education

The studies conducted by Meyer and his colleagues (Meyer & Rowan,
1977, 1978; Meyer et al., 1978; Meyer et al., 1981) in American elementary
schools revealed that the cohesiveness present in schools was formed by
institutional belief systems rather than organizational structure:
‘Institutional beliefs, rules, and roles come to be coded into the structure of
educational organizations’ (Scott, 1987: 506). In our review of the existing
research, we will rely on the three pillars of institutions: regulative,
normative and cognitive.
Some researchers have explored the regulatory influence of institutions,

which allocate authority and prescribe rules for exercising it. School is
structured by government and is subject to bureaucratic authorities that
‘present themselves not as units servicing education but as organizations
that embody educational purposes in their collective structure’ (Meyer &
Rowan, 1978: 92).
However, the extent of the regulative institutional effect and its impact
depend on political and policy arrangements, that is, the relations and
tensions among levels of government. The effects of the centralization or
decentralization of government have an impact on the government’s

regulatory influence.
In his study of elementary school districts in America, Rowan (1981)

revealed that, after controlling for district size, there was a strong positive
relationship between the amount of special federal and state funds received
per student and the size of the administrative staff of the school district.
The research of Meyer, Scott and Strang (1987) demonstrates that
federally funded programs had more effect on educational agencies and
the district offices than on individual schools.
In the wake of widespread calls for more accountability in America,

government regulations finally reached into the inner working of the
school through new accountability schemes (Rowan, 2006). Spillane and
Burch (2006) show how the government exercises its authority, especially
in the regulation of subject areas within the school curriculum. As Meyer
and Rowan (2006) point out,
Schools, it seems, are no longer shielded from the pressures of

accountability and efficiency; the once airtight government monopoly of
schooling has been invaded by private providers; the dominant institutional
forms of schooling no longer serve as unrivalled models for emulation.
(Meyer & Rowan, 2006:3)
While higher powers will not cease to direct or even lead the policy
implementation process (McLaughlin, 1990), there is now some leeway in
the manner that local officials carrying state policies (Luschei &
Christensen, 2008; Spillane, 2000; Supovitz, 2007). For example, Luschei
and Christensen (2008) found examples of district interventions, which
increased schools’ internal coherence and encouraged direct but narrower
responses to state accountability requirements. Their research reminds us
that the local district often mediates between state policies and the schools.
Fuller’s research (2008: 8) highlights this fact: it shows how school district
leaders, acting as intermediaries between the state and school, interpret
and mobilize new tools available to raise student performance.
These studies draw attention to the fact that the extent of the institutional
effects on schools is influenced by political arrangements, the tension
between central and local governments, and the processes of policy
implementation. Given the changing institutional environment, the
government must create new channels to maintain their influence on school.
28 Chapter Two
Studies that stress the impact of the regulative institution often cannot
adequately account for the differences in the structures of schools. The
research pays too little attention to the local influences. In fact, different
schools have different responses to the same regulations. Such diverse
patterns of response from schools, teachers, parents, and students require
explanation.
The normative pillar of institutionalism can be seen in the norms adopted

and promoted by the schools. Rowan’s (1982) study shows that schools,
recognizing the importance of promoting mental and psychological health,
created positions for professionals in these fields in the school. The
institutionalized definitions of the nature of knowledge, learning, and
teaching have an effect on schools and teachers since there is a ‘sameness’
in teachers’ practices (Rowan & Miskel, 1999).
The cognitive pillar also influences the operation of schools (Cuban, 1993;
Rowan & Miskel, 1999). Researchers have shown than parents’ beliefs and
assumptions regarding childcare and education have influenced school
policy and the behavior of teachers. To some extent, parental assumptions
are influenced by the education market, for example, through the ‘shadow
education’, promoted by parents (Davies et al., 2006; Wiseman & Baker,
2006).
Previous studies in the 1970s and 80s contend that the isomorphism of a
school’s form and structure was developed as a result of the institutional
environment in which the government and professionals took full control
of the school, putting it outside the range of market forces. Later research
by Davies and his colleagues (Davies et al., 2006; Aurini, 2006) on
Canadian private schools explored the market influence in the educational
field. The researchers concluded that private schools were influenced by
the changing and complex attitudes of parents towards education.
In summary, the institutional environment of education shifted from

unified to pluralistic: different interests, and even conflicts, shape schools.
The extent of the impact of institutions on schools is mediated by the
school organization, origins, and response to external controls. Schools
are not simply ‘captives’ of government, professions and parents; they
actively cope with institutions.
2.4.2 Coping with institutions

Although institutions have influence on schools, schools adopt their own
strategies to obtain legitimacy and meet the needs of the institution at the
same time. Some researchers argue that schools adopt a decoupling
mechanism to cope with institutions and to maintain their own internal
procedures, operations and routines (Edelman, 1992). The school can
present an external appearance that masks its internal activity. Teachers’
classroom practices, for example, can be protected from external
investigation and evaluation (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; 1978; Weick, 1976).
The complexity of the relationship between public school districts and

individual schools is related to the many state and federal programs. Each
level of education adjusts in its own way to the demands formed by the
environment (Scott & Meyer, 1991: 128-129).
McLaughlin and Talbert’s (2001) study shows that norms vary among
departments within schools and that teachers mediate norms within their
communities. They categorize the work lives and careers of American
school teachers according to three types: privacy norms and declining
career rewards, stratifying norms and career inequality, and collaboration
norms and career growth (2001: 69–78).
Teachers interpret, adapt and even transform reforms as they put them into
practice (Coburn, 2001a; 2001b). Hemmings and Metz (1990) show how
teachers cope with institutional pressures by setting ‘real teaching’ against
the demands of a complicated institutional environment. ‘Real teaching’ is
socially legitimized. It is intended to meet public expectations for schooling
and also to be effective. Coburn (2004) notes that the institutional
environment did have an effect on a school’s classroom practice, but that the
teachers actively mediate these effects in accordance with their pre-existing
beliefs and practices. Coburn (2004) identifies five strategies used by
teachers to respond to institutional pressures: rejection, decoupling/symbolic
response, parallel structures, assimilation, and accommodation (2004: 223).
Hamilton et al. (2008) similarly found that, although the government

exerted pressure to ensure the alignment of state curricular standards and
teacher’s instructional practices, teachers continue to exercise a large
degree of autonomy. In addition to the teachers themselves, other key
actors (policy-makers, union activists and academics) provide a network
that promotes legitimacy of teacher’s practices and the diffusion of
school-based management (Ogawa, 1994).
30 Chapter Two
2.5 Summary
Many types of institutions—regulative, normative and cognitive—influence
education. At the same time, school organizations, principals and teachers
actively respond to institutions and adopt strategies to interpret, and even
reconstruct, institutional pressure.
The studies cited above, which take a new institutionalism approach to

education, reveal both the influence of the institution and the response of
the school organization. Still, the ways in which the institutional
environment interacts with the school structure have received less
attention. This is particularly true when applied to China, where there have
been very few studies of minban schools that adopt the new
institutionalism approach.
New institutionalism offers a broad perspective from which to analyze the

operation of minban schools, as organizations in a complex and dynamic
institutional environment. The institution undoubtedly has a large
influence on the organization, but, as the above analysis shows, minban
schools themselves are capable of countering this influence through a
variety of strategies.
CHAPTER THREE
MINBAN EDUCATION POLICIES IN CHINA
Minban schools re-emerged in China during the 1980s following

education reforms that reflected greater support for the free market and
tolerance for different political ideologies and practices. Demands for
education and economic growth led to a return to minban education.
During the 1980s, the government played the most important role in
promoting minban education. It introduced a series of policies and
initiatives that suggested new governing ideologies (Chan & Wang, 2009).
Government was still, however, the key actor within the centralized and
hierarchical structure of Chinese society.
A review of Chinese educational policy should focus on the education

policies introduced by the government. The lawmakers include the core
leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) people’s congresses
and governments (Law, 2002). Each government operates on three levels:
national, regional (or provincial) and local (city, country, township or
village). The central government has had the most powerful influence in
determining the overall direction of minban education.
Yan and Lin (2004) argue that the development of minban schools since
1978 occurred in three stages: recovery and development (1978–1992),
rapid development (1992—1997), and normalization (1997–present).
These stages correspond to changes in local government policies. However,
the direction of policies and their impact has changed since 2002. As
shown in Figure 3.1, the annual growth rate of minban secondary schools
has exhibited a downward trend since 2003, after a steady growth in the
period 1995 to 2003. Hence we propose a more updated five-stage model:
disruption (1949–1977), re-emergence (1978–1991), development
(1992–1996), normalization (1997–2001) and legalized regression (2002
onwards).
32 Chapter Three
Figure 3.1: Annual growth rate of minban secondary schools
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Schools Enrollment Full-time teachers
Sources: State Education Commission, 1994–1997; Ministry of Education,

1998–2007.
3.1 Disruption of minban schools: 1949–1977

China has a long history of minban education, which can be traced back to
the days of Confucius. At the time that the CPP gained monopolistic power,
there were 2, 267 private secondary schools and 403,000 private students
(of a total of 4,045 secondary schools and 1.04 million secondary students)
(Qu, 2000:10). Since 1949, the CCP has been the ruling party of China,
and it considers education key to the political and ideological development
of the Chinese people. In addition to fostering a love for communist ideals,
the education system should be a vehicle for promoting social equality and
achieving other relevant social goals (Tsang, 2000).
The Common Program of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative

Conference (1949) recommended the gradual reform of the old educational
structures, curricula, and methods. The faculties of universities underwent
adjustments, and private colleges became public in 1951 and 1952. In
1952, the government converted all private elementary and secondary
schools into public schools. By 1957, all private institutions had been
Minban Education Policies in China 33
converted to public. Following the Soviet model, the central government

viewed minban education as a capital offence.
3.2 Re-emergence of minban schools: 1978–1991

In 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of
the Communist Party of China sparked off an overall reform of Chinese
society and economy, and ushered in a new development phase. The goal
of modernization was the impetus for educational reform because
Mainland China’s human resources were unable to compete in a global
market (Gai, 1990: 196). Gai (1990) outlines the important innovations
introduced by Deng Xiaoping and other officials:
1) Providing more opportunities for primary education, changing the

structure of secondary education, and developing higher education to
make it a center for ‘scientific instruction and research;
2) Extending the duration of education;
3) Reintroducing entrance examinations;
4) Restoring the authority of school principals; and
5) Restructuring the curriculum (Gai, 1990: 196).
The revival of university entrance examination policy in 1977 fostered an

increased demand for remedial tutoring. Some minban schools were
re-established in former private schools and relied on alumni donations for
funding (Yan & Lin, 2004).
In 1982, the Nineteenth Clause of Constitution of the People’s Republic of

China, introduced by the National People’s Congress, stated that the state
should encourage collective economic organizations, state enterprises and
other social bodies to establish educational institutions of various types in
accordance with the law. As the first document that approved minban
education and granted it legal status, it opened a new chapter of minban
education in China.
The reform of education was accompanied by economic reform, and the

Twelfth PRC Meeting National Premium held in 1982 passed The Decision
on the Reform of the Economic System. This document proposes that
science, technology and education should undergo changes in line with
economic reform.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
NEW HAVEN 522 FIFTH AVENUE
CONNECTICUT NEW YORK CITY
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Announces the Publication of
Poems of Arthur O’Shaughnessy

Selected and Edited by
WILLIAM ALEXANDER PERCY
Mr. Percy says in his remarkable Introduction: “The Yale
University Press, thinking perhaps, with me, that even the most
beautiful things perish if the opportunity for reading or seeing or
hearing them is not offered the vexed and hurrying children of
men, has undertaken here the pious task of making
O’Shaughnessy’s finest poems accessible to readers of English
poetry.... His best is unique, of a haunting beauty, a very precious
heritage.... He had, as Palgrave put it, ‘The exquisite tenderness
of touch, the melody and delicacy’ of his favorite composer,
Chopin.... If I were passing the Siren Isles, one of the songs I
know I should hear drifting across the waves would be that which
Sarrazine sang to her dead lover in Chaitivel:
‘Hath any loved you well, down there,

Summer or winter through?
Down there, have you found any fair
Laid in the grave with you?
Is death’s long kiss a richer kiss
Than mine was wont to be—
Or have you gone to some far bliss
And quite forgotten me?’”
O’Shaughnessy died in 1881. Until the publication of this

admirably edited volume, no considerable part of his work has
been commonly available for many years.
Price $2.00.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE YALE
LITERARY MAGAZINE (VOL. LXXXVIII, NO. 6, MARCH 1923) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

Full Ebook of Managing Institutions The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland China 1St Edition Ying Wang Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Ebook of Managing Institutions The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland China 1St Edition Ying Wang Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Managing Institutions The Survival of Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland China 1St Edition Ying Wang Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Institutions The Survival of

Minban Secondary Schools in Mainland

Alternative Representations of the Past The Politics of

The Art of Terrestrial Diagrams in Early China 1st

Confucian Image Politics Masculine Morality in

Environmental Strategy and Planning in China 1st

Trade and Expansion in Han China A Study in the

Cyberdualism in China The Political Implications of

Moving Between Cultures Through Arts Based Inquiry Re

Consensus or Conflict China and Globalization in the

This book first published 2013

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright © 2013 by Ying Wang

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5168-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5168-8

List of Tables ............................................................................................ viii

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 9

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 31

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 48

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 72

Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 83

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 172

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 206

References ............................................................................................... 216

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................. 232

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................. 234

Table 1.1: Development of minban schools (1994–2007)

Figure 2.1: The framework of new institutionalism

I am particularly grateful to my panel members, Dr. LEUNG, Kwan Kwok,

My gratitude also goes to the principals, teachers and students of minban

I am grateful to City University of Hong Kong for providing me with a

I will also take this opportunity to thank my mother, LI Guoai, my father,

resilience in the face of adversity. Without their love, patience and

1.1 Minban education in contemporary China

The re-emergence of minban schools is a notable phenomenon. The new

Although the number of minban schools and their enrollment have

Table 1.1: Development of minban schools (1994–2007)

Secondary education Primary education

Items Schools % Total % Graduates %

Operated by private institutions 4,482 7.58 4, 125,485 7.21 1, 223,441 6.25

Operated by other departments 458 2.92 372,453 1.48 126,043 1.60

Source: Ministry of Education, 2008

The perception of education as a public good is long-standing. China’s

However, as Labaree observes, ‘in an era when markets are triumphant

As the product of privatization and marketization, minban schools are not

As a result of China’s current transitions, the requirements of minban schools

Given this pluralism, it is no surprise that the definition of minban schools

Many parties—regulators, investors, principals, teachers and parents—

In Mainland China, most research on minban schools focuses on the

The existing research treats minban schools as closed organizations,

1) In light of the transitional institutional context, what are the

2) Which strategies are adopted by different types of minban schools

The findings of this study offer a better understanding of school reform,

1.2 Definition of key concepts

The Provisional Regulations on the Non-State Higher Educational Sector

Despite these definitions, the meaning of minban school remains