Creating and then consolidating an institution is neither easy nor quick. It is a technical and political process that entails changes in levels of action and decision-making and involves different stakeholders with different rationales, as well as other institutions. All of them want a say in identifying problems, setting agendas and making decisions (ECLAC, 2000).
For this reason, attention must also be paid to institutionalization, that is, to the process whereby social practices become regular and continuous enough (thanks to regulations that sanction and maintain them) to play a major role in shaping the organizational structure (Levy, 1996). This legitimization mechanism created by societies enables government agencies to sow an imaginary in public opinion and establish practical applications in the form of policies.
This means that setting up public institutions to deal with a specific issue calls for radical changes in organizational structure. Although it depends on the context, the institutionalization of a given issue should therefore not be seen as just adhering to pre-existing structures and strategies (ECLAC, 2000). The issue should be mainstreamed into general public policy, followed by the creation and development of compliance mechanisms within the general State agenda. Specific targeting actions for implementation and accountability may also be appropriate in some circumstances, but this will depend on their orientation and on the services and benefits provided given the nature and depth of the problem they seek to address.
A number of different approaches can be used to study the institutionalization of a specific issue. The standard approach is to determine whether the necessary requirements have been met for the resource management system to achieve certain goals. Those requirements are often defined using a top-down approach, focusing more on the needs of the public policy elite than on the needs of those charged with policy implementation. Because it oversimplifies reality, this approach does not address the real shortcomings which governments must deal with when faced with social changes of the magnitude of those now under way.
For others (Hall and Lamont, 2009), the study of institutions means examining the formal rules, compliance procedures and operational practices that link individuals in different government units and connect the State to society. In this context, it is best to study institutionalization as a process —in the words of Levy (1995), a web— of transformation and legitimization brought about in a society as it focuses on a particular
issue. Its form, evolution and content will depend on how citizens perceive and assess situations they face in life. As a result, institutions are rooted in values and cultural beliefs, as well as in the knowledge accepted by society (Elder and Cobb, 2003), including the way in which the problems have been dealt with in other places (Polsby, 1984).
In line with the model proposed by Levy in 1996, institutionalization can be studied based on three levels of abstraction: at the level of the definition of analytical categories, at the level of techniques and at the level of the process of intervention (Levy, 1996) (see diagram VI.2).
Diagram VI.2
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Techniques Process of intervention Definition of analytical categories
Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE)-Population Division of ECLAC, on the basis of Caren Levy, “The process of institutionalising gender in policy and planning: the “web” of institutionalisation”, Working Paper, No. 74, London, University College.
• The definition of analytical categories. The issues which institutions deal with do not exist objectively, but rather they are socially constructed, raising questions which must be dealt with and determining the way to deal with them (aims of the interventions, instruments, operators and others). The definition of the analytical categories thus determines the solution found or decision made in relation to the problem which gave rise to the process of institutionalization, and it affects their future within the State apparatus.
• The level of techniques. Institutionalization is both a technical and a political process which not only requires changes in different areas of action and decision-making but also involves the strengthening of the substantive-operational link in different
thematic areas (ECLAC, 2000). Each component of the policies and of the process of planning for intervention has techniques associated with it. Using them reduces uncertainties relating to the outcomes of practice.
• The process of intervention. This is a set of actions which change intentions into observable results, putting predetermined objectives into practice. It is about finding the right balance between the components relating to staffing, organization and control, and procedures and communications.
However, in the analysis of public policies, the first level is more widely developed than the others. Despite their important contribution to achieving results, both the level of techniques and the process of intervention are often considered as coming after decision-making. Experience and academic work have rightly shown, in a timely manner, that both levels follow public policymaking. In other words, “public policy is made as it is being administered and administered as it is being made” (Anderson, 1975).