05-58a-e brinkerhoff finalecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/dp-58a... · 2019-04-25 · ongoing...

European Centre for Development Policy ManagementCentre européen de gestion des politiques de développement

John SaxbyPretoria, South Africa

Mobilising against hunger and for life:An analysis of capacity and change in a Brazilian network

Discussion paper No 58AJune 2005

Reflection

John SaxbyPretoria, South Africa

Organisational legitimacy, capacityand capacity development

Derick W. Brinkerhoff

1

The lack of capacity in low-income countries is one of the mainconstraints to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.Even practitioners confess to having only a limitedunderstanding of how capacity actually develops. In 2002, thechair of Govnet, the Network on Governance and CapacityDevelopment of the OECD, asked the European Centre forDevelopment Policy Management (ECDPM) in Maastricht, theNetherlands to undertake a study of how organisations andsystems, mainly in developing countries, have succeeded inbuilding their capacity and improving performance. Theresulting study focuses on the endogenous process of capacitydevelopment - the process of change from the perspective ofthose undergoing the change. The study examines the factorsthat encourage it, how it differs from one context to another,and why efforts to develop capacity have been more successfulin some contexts than in others.

The study consists of about 20 field cases carried out accordingto a methodological framework with seven components, asfollows:• Capabilities: How do the capabilities of a group,

organisation or network feed into organisational capacity?• Endogenous change and adaptation: How do processes of

change take place within an organisation or system? • Performance: What has the organisation or system

accomplished or is it now able to deliver? The focus here ison assessing the effectiveness of the process of capacitydevelopment rather than on impact, which will beapparent only in the long term.

External context Stakeholders

Internal features andresources

External intervention

The simplified analytical framework

Co r e va r i a b l e s

Capabilities

EndogenousChange andadaptation

Performance

Study of Capacity, Change and PerformanceNotes on the methodology

• External context: How has the external context - thehistorical, cultural, political and institutional environment,and the constraints and opportunities they create - influenced the capacity and performance of theorganisation or system?

• Stakeholders: What has been the influence of stakeholderssuch as beneficiaries, suppliers and supporters, and theirdifferent interests, expectations, modes of behaviour,resources, interrelationships and intensity of involvement?

• External interventions: How have outsiders influenced theprocess of change?

• Internal features and key resources: What are the patternsof internal features such as formal and informal roles,structures, resources, culture, strategies and values, andwhat influence have they had at both the organisationaland multi-organisational levels?

The outputs of the study will include about 20 case studyreports, an annotated review of the literature, a set ofassessment tools, and various thematic papers to stimulatenew thinking and practices about capacity development. Thesynthesis report summarising the results of the case studies willbe published in 2005.

The results of the study, interim reports and an elaboratedmethodology can be consulted at www.capacity.org orwww.ecdpm.org. For further information, please contactMs Heather Baser ([email protected]).

Organisational legitimacy, capacity and capacity development

Derick W. Brinkerhoff

A case study prepared for the project 'Capacity, Change and Performance'

June 2005

Capacity Study Reflection Discussion Paper No. 58A

iii

The European Centre forDevelopment Policy ManagementOnze Lieve Vrouweplein 21NL-6211 HE Maastricht, The Netherlands Tel +31 (0)43 350 29 00Fax +31 (0)43 350 29 [email protected] www.ecdpm.org

RTI International1615 M Street NW, Suite 740Washington, DC 20036, [email protected]

ContentsAcronyms

1 Introduction

2 What is legitimacy?

3 Types of legitimacy3.1 Normative legitimacy3.2 Pragmatic legitimacy3.3 Cognitive legitimacy3.4 Sources of legitimacy

4 Managing legitimacy4.1 Conforming: look like other organisations4.2 Informing: communicate in 'legitimated vocabularies'4.3 Manipulating: exploit myths and ceremony4.4 Stakeholder dynamics4.5 The importance of reputation4.6 Links among types of legitimacy4.7 Legitimacy and capacity

5 Legitimacy and the ECDPM cases 15.1 Lacor Hospital, Uganda5.2 COEP, Brazil5.3 SISDUK, Indonesia5.4 ESDU, Eastern Caribbean5.5 Church organisations, Papua New Guinea5.6 Rwanda Revenue Authority, Rwanda5.7 Decentralised education services, Pakistan

Appendix: The ECDPM case studies

Bibliography

This study was undertaken by ECDPM in the context of the OECD/DAC study on Capacity. Change andPerformance financed by the Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Program (AusAID), the CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA), the UK Department for International Development (DfID), theDutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and theSwedish International Development Agency (Sida), as well as contributions from several of the organisationswho are the focus of the case studies.

iv

1

1

33445

7788991010

1111111112121313

14

15

Acronyms COEP Comitê de Entidades no Combate à Fome e pela Vida

(Committee of Entities in the Struggle against Hunger and for a Full Life)DfID Department for International Development (UK) ECDPM European Centre for Development Policy ManagementESDU Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (of the OECS)GAAP generally accepted accounting principles JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency NGO non-governmental organisationOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean StatesPNG Papua New Guinea RRA Rwanda Revenue AuthoritySISDUK Sistem Dukungan - Local Village Community Development Support System

Discussion Paper No. 58A Capacity Study Reflection

iv


1

1 IntroductionIssues of capacity and performance remain at theheart of debate in the field of international develop-ment and cooperation. What constitutes capacity,how to build it and make it last, with whom andwhere capacity resides, and how capacity translatesinto performance are all questions that continue toengage both academics and practitioners (see, forexample, Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith, 1992; Eade,1997; Fukuda-Parr et al., 2002; Morgan and Qualman,1996; Bhatta, 2003; Potter and Brough, 2004).

The European Centre for Development PolicyManagement (ECDPM) has undertaken a study ofcapacity development, with a focus on organisationalchange and performance enhancement. Both individ-ual organisations and networks of organisationshave been studied with the aim of identifying impor-tant relationships among endogenous change fac-tors (e.g. ownership, commitment and managerialstyle), key internal organisation variables (e.g. struc-tures, procedures, staffing and management sys-tems), performance and sustainability outcomes, andexternal environmental factors (e.g. policy frame-works, resource availability, politics, stakeholders,governance regimes, etc.).1

To date, the ECDPM study team has conducted 16case studies (see Appendix). Among the findings thathave emerged from several of the cases is the pres-ence of an organisation's legitimacy as a factor con-tributing to successful capacity and performance. Todelve in more detail into the concept of legitimacy,and to identify the implications for capacity building,ECDPM commissioned a working paper on the topic.This exploratory paper reviews the relevant literatureand examines: differing definitions, types andsources of legitimacy; the links between legitimacyand organisational capacity, performance and sus-tainability; and management strategies for buildingand maintaining legitimacy. It discusses a selectedset of the ECDPM cases in terms of the legitimacyconcept.

2 What is legitimacy?The concept of legitimacy encompasses normative,legal, sociological and cultural meanings. Legitimacyhas long been recognised as a core element in politi-cal and governance regimes, dealing with the rela-tionship between societal acceptance of regimes andinstitutions and their ability to exercise power andauthority effectively.2 The focus of this paper is onorganisational legitimacy, rather than on legitimacyin the realm of politics and regime types. It followsseveral disciplinary streams of research and analysisthat examine the forces that impact upon organisa-tional actors: organisational population ecology(Hannan and Freeman, 1989; see also Zucker, 1989),resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik,1978), and neo-institutional approaches (Powell andDiMaggio, 1991). In the field of international develop-ment, legitimacy surfaces in two discourses. First, ithas been addressed, more or less explicitly, in treat-ments of institutional development and systemsapproaches to sustainability (see Brinkerhoff, 1986;Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith, 1992). Second, morerecently, legitimacy has emerged as an area of con-cern and inquiry for non-governmental organisations(NGOs), linked to questions of representation andaccountability (Hudson, 2000; Lister, 2003; Saxby andSchachter, 2003).

Definitions of organisational legitimacy are relativelybroad, and tend toward vague assertions about legit-imation arising from consistency with socio-culturalvalues. Frequently cited definitions of the terminclude:

'Legitimacy is a generalised perception orassumption that the actions of an entity aredesirable, proper, or appropriate within somesocially constructed system of norms, values,beliefs, and definitions' (Suchman, 1995: 574).

'Organisational legitimacy refers to the degree ofcultural support for an organisation - the extentto which the array of established culturalaccounts provide explanations for its existence,functioning, and jurisdiction …' (Meyer and Scott, 1983: 201).

Legitimate organisations meet and conform to socie-tal expectations, and as a result are accepted, valuedand taken for granted as right, fitting and good(Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Meyer and Scott, 1983).

Notes1 For more information about the study and capacity building

see www.capacity.org.2 The classic reference is Weber (1947).

Legitimacy and legitimation are conceptually close toinstitutionalisation. Selznick refers to institutions ashaving become 'infused with value beyond the tech-nical requirements at hand' (1957: 17; see also Scott,1995). Institutions, by definition, have a high degreeof legitimacy, so that assessments of legitimacy canbe used as one measure of institutionalisation.Theoretical approaches differ in the extent to whichthe forces pushing for institutionalisation and legiti-macy derive from features of the institutional envi-ronment, or from intentionality and action on thepart of organisational actors (Zucker, 1989, 1991).Perspectives converge, however, in seeing institution-alisation as a continuous variable - that is, as aprocess - rather than as a binary state variable(where an organisation is either institutionalised ornot).

In the international context, this values-infusingprocess is associated with the concepts of institutionbuilding and institutional development, which have along history (see, for example, Esman, 1972).Institutional development combines 'links to theunderlying principles that define and support a soci-ety's ongoing configuration of norms and values; andactions designed to induce changed activity andbehaviour patterns in the society' (Brinkerhoff, 1986:15). In practice, the distinction between institutionsand organisations is often blurred, but the focus ongrounding them solidly in the social fabric incorpo-rates legitimation as a key element in the process.

Other related concepts are trust, reliability and repu-tation (see Boin and Kofman-Bos, 2003; Deephouseand Carter, 2005). Organisations that adhere to socie-tal expectations (regarding mission, actions, struc-ture, performance, and so on), and that build anongoing reputation for their appropriateness andcorrectness, are viewed as trustworthy and reliable,which contribute to being accorded legitimacy. Theseexpectations can be either explicit and formal, estab-lished by governments and legal frameworks, orinformal and implicit, emerging from deep and wide-ly diffused shared meanings within societies. Anexample of formal and explicit expectations is theset of cost accounting standards embodied in gener-ally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).3Organisations that follow these principles are seen astrustworthy managers of the financial resources theyhandle. An example of informal, deeply embeddedexpectations is the widely accepted norms aroundwhat constitutes an educational organisation; for

example, students grouped by age-cohorts andreceiving instruction in classrooms, a formal curricu-lum divided by subject areas, and teachers-as-author-ity-figures managing the education process. Schoolsthat conform to these norms garner acceptance andlegitimacy (see Meyer and Scott, 1983).4 Deephouseand Carter (2005) differentiate reputation from legiti-macy by characterising reputation as the standing ofone organisation relative to others, which can beassessed on a wide variety of organisational attrib-utes, including the extent to which they are per-ceived to be legitimate.

As the extensive literature on the defining features oforganisational legitimacy suggests, it is a term ofwidely accepted yet ultimately vague and uncertainmeaning.5 Yet, legitimacy is important because manyanalyses point out the organisational benefits accru-ing from some degree of shared agreement amongsocietal constituencies that an organisation isaligned with accepted notions of purpose, endeavourand outcomes. To move beyond general treatmentsof legitimacy, several questions need to be asked.These include: (a) What types of legitimacy and whatrelated aspect(s) of organisations are of interest? (b)What are the various sources of legitimacy andwhich of legitimacy's types/dimensions do they tar-get? (c) How can organisation-environment relation-ships be managed in order to enhance legitimacy?


2

Notes3 Standard-setting, enforcement and oversight bodies for

GAAP in the US include: the Financial Accounting andStandards Board, the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and theInternational Accounting and Standards Board.

4 In the US, the alternative schooling movements of the 19thand 20th centuries faced legitimacy challenges becausethey violated many of the norms popularly associated with'real' education.

5 See the numerous sources cited in Boin and Kofman-Bos(2003), Deephouse and Carter (2005), Powell and DiMaggio(1991), Myer and Scott (1983), Ruef and Scott (1998),Suchman (1995), and Thirkell-White (2003).

If the first category of normative legitimacy can besummarised as 'doing the right things,' then the sec-ond category can be encapsulated as 'doing thingsright'. In addition to achieving desired and valuedresults, and particularly in cases where results arehard to detect or measure, organisations can garnernormative legitimacy by following societally valued,validated and/or mandated practices and procedures.In many countries, this type of normative legitimacyis formalised in accreditation, regulatory oversightand licensure, as for example in the health, educa-tion, and social welfare sectors.

The third variant refers to normative legitimacy thatresults from constituents' perceptions of the organi-sation as valued due to its structural characteristics,which place it within a category of organisationswidely recognised as 'right' for the job. A good exam-ple is a social service organisation that, because it isa non-profit voluntary organisation, is validated forits membership in a category of organisations recog-nised for pursuit of socially beneficial objectivesrather than for any specific results it has achieved. Ininternational development, the 'pseudo-NGO' is awell recognised entity that seeks to capitalise on thelegitimacy accorded to the non-profit and voluntarysector to garner resources.6

The fourth form of normative legitimacy derivesfrom the personal status, reputation and charisma ofindividual organisational leaders and staff. While lesscommonly found in industrialised societies, this typeof legitimacy is more prevalent in developing andtransition countries where traditions of paternalism,

3 Types of legitimacyThe literature distinguishes broadly among threetypes of legitimacy. The first is normative, or whatSuchman (1995) calls moral legitimacy, the second ispragmatic legitimacy, and the third is cognitive legiti-macy. These are summarised in Table 1 and discussedbelow.

3.1 Normative legitimacy

Normative (or moral) legitimacy is accorded to anorganisation when it reflects sociallyacceptable/desirable norms, standards and values.Constituencies assess the organisation in terms of itssocial correctness and desirability, not whether theyderive benefits from it. Suchman (1995: 579-582)identifies four variants of normative legitimacy inthe literature: judgements about outputs and conse-quences, evaluations of procedures and techniques,assessments of categories and structures, and evalu-ations of leaders and personnel. The first relates toorganisational accomplishments as judged againstcriteria and output measures specific to the type oforganisation, for example, student graduation ratesor test scores for schools, or patient mortality ratesfor hospitals. Clearly, achieving this form of norma-tive legitimacy is easier for organisations that gener-ate tangible and measurable outputs. For thosewhose outcome measures are difficult to quantify orare subject to debate, their legitimacy is sometimeshotly contested.


3

Type Definition Relationship with constituentsNormative legitimacy Organisation reflects acceptable

and desirable norms, standardsand values.

Organisation meets normativejudgments about outputs/results,procedures and technologies,structures, leaders and personnel.

Pragmatic legitimacy Organisation fulfils needs andinterests of its stakeholders andconstituents.

Organisation exchanges goodsand services that constituentswant, and receives support andlegitimacy.

Cognitive legitimacy Organisation pursues goals andactivities that fit with broad socialunderstandings of what is appro-priate, proper and desirable.

Organisation 'makes sense' and/oris 'taken for granted' according tosocially constructed 'realities'.

Notes6 Lister (2003) explores in depth issues of legitimacy facing

NGOs in international development.

Table 1. Types of organisational legitimacy.


4

'personalismo,' and (in Africa) the 'big man' syn-drome define organisations directly in terms of thecharacteristics of those who lead them. Constituentsattribute legitimacy to an organisation not becauseof what it does or how it does it, but as a function ofthe perceived legitimacy of the representative andtitular head of the organisation.

3.2 Pragmatic legitimacy

Pragmatic legitimacy relates to the instrumentalvalue of the organisation for its stakeholders interms of how it fulfils their self-interest. Here legiti-macy is assessed in terms of the extent to which theorganisation can act to serve the needs and interestsof its stakeholders and constituents. Most directly,pragmatic legitimacy emerges as a function ofexchange relationships between an organisation andits immediate stakeholders. The organisation pro-duces outputs (goods and/or services) that stake-holders value, who in return proffer their support.One form that support can take is the accordance oflegitimacy. Conceptually, this type of legitimacyclosely resembles resource/power dependence mod-els of organisation-environment interaction, whereoutcomes relate to survival and sustainability (seePfeffer and Salancik 1978; Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith,1992). The ability to offer (or withhold) legitimacy isone resource that stakeholders possess, which maycontribute to organisational survival and long-termsustainability.

A second variant in this category is what Suchman(1995) terms influence legitimacy. In this case, theexchange relationship between an organisation andits constituents results less in specific benefits for anindividual stakeholder, and more in responsivenessto the constituent's larger interests. Examplesinclude environmental advocacy organisations, suchas the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, which in the eyesof their constituents strive to achieve policy out-comes that reflect the general commitment to envi-ronmental principles and practices that their mem-bers value.

Influence legitimacy can be important for organisa-tions whose outputs are hard to measure and whoseintended outcomes are difficult to attribute to par-ticular actions. Thus stakeholders may have difficultyin assuring themselves that the organisation is con-tributing to their interests. In this case, the organisa-

tion may incorporate some form of stakeholder par-ticipation in its procedures, which serves to demon-strate responsiveness, and may increase the legitima-cy of the organisation with that category of stake-holder. An example would be a local governmentthat establishes neighbourhood advisory committeesin order to incorporate citizen inputs into local devel-opment plans and decisions.

3.3 Cognitive legitimacy

Cognitive legitimacy is produced when an organisa-tion pursues objectives and activities that societyunderstands and values as appropriate, proper anddesirable. Such understanding on the part of societalactors, and the legitimacy that results, derives fromthe extent to which what the organisation does isperceived as 'making sense'. This sense making oper-ates in two ways, according to Suchman's review ofthe literature (1995).

If societal actors have a cultural framework thatallows them to explain the organisation as engagedin comprehensible behaviour that produces accept-able and meaningful results, then that organisationwill achieve cognitive legitimacy based on compre-hensibility. For example, in the United States, busi-nesses that innovate with new products, activelyseek out new markets and exploit opportunities, andpursue profit-making aggressively are categorisedand understood as engaging in entrepreneurialbehaviour. US society generally accepts and valuesentrepreneurs. North American social cognitive mapsboth recognise and accord legitimacy to entities thatact in an entrepreneurial way. In contrast, in thecountries of the former Soviet Union and Central andEastern Europe immediately after the collapse ofcommunism, societal understanding of entrepre-neurial behaviour was low, and, at least initially,organisations and individuals labelled as entrepre-neurs were seen as illegitimate and even criminal.Suspicion of what in the West is seen as legitimateand desirable business behaviour remains wide-spread in former communist countries. This examplealso illustrates how experience influences cognitivemaps, which in turn contributes to perceptions oflegitimacy. In many countries of the former SovietUnion poorly managed privatisation did in fact leadto corruption and profiteering in the guise of pro-moting private sector development, further tarnish-ing the image of entrepreneurship.


5

3.4 Sources of legitimacy

There are several answers to the question of whatthe sources of legitimacy are, and where they arelocated. The overarching answer is that legitimacyand processes of legitimation are phenomena thatoriginate and operate external to the intent andactions of an individual organisation. The neo-institu-tionalism school of thought conceives of the sourcesof legitimacy and legitimisation as deriving from thedynamics and characteristics of an organisation'senvironment. These environmental forces operate atthe level of the sector, organisational population orsociety. It is not so much individual organisations thatare legitimised, but rather organisational forms,structural elements, technical procedures and rules(see Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Meyer and Scott1983). For neo-institutionalists, the major forces atwork relating to legitimacy in an organisation's envi-ronment have to do largely with symbolic factors,both normative and cognitive, although as Suchman(1995) points out, some analysts link legitimacy topragmatic exchange relationships.

Neo-institutionalism could be interpreted as dimin-ishing or even eliminating managerial discretion interms of legitimacy, since many if not most of the rel-evant environmental characteristics that neo-institu-tionalists identify as impinging upon an individualorganisation's success in legitimation are often notamenable to influence, much less control by individ-ual organisational actors. However, these models andanalytic approaches still argue for a strong strategicmanagement capacity in order to align the organisa-tion with its environment. To achieve legitimacy, anorganisation needs what Meyer and Rowan (1991: 53)call 'sagacious conformity' to societal 'myths', e.g.about cause and effect, and 'ceremonies', e.g. aboutappropriate procedures and practices. These authorsgo on to state that 'organisations fail when they devi-ate from the prescriptions of institutionalising myths:quite apart from technical efficiency, organisationswhich innovate in important structural ways bearconsiderable costs in legitimacy'.

The image of myth and ceremony conjures upnotions of broadly shared societal conceptions - suchas the appropriate role of the state, the nature ofpublic goods, or the balance between collective ver-sus individual rights - as the core forces for legitima-tion that exert pressures on an organisation. Forexample, as a class of organisations, non-profit socialservice and humanitarian organisations derive legiti-

The second way that an organisation can 'makesense' is that if society accepts the organisation, itsstructures, procedures and activities as so completelyunderstandable and appropriate that no otheroption is imaginable, then such an organisationenjoys legitimacy based on being taken for granted.The organisation's legitimacy is embedded in thesocial construction of reality, where knowing andunderstanding are shared widely among societalactors. The appropriateness of the behaviour of anorganisational actor that exhibits 'taken-for-granted-ness' becomes what Zucker (1991: 86) calls a reflec-tion of 'a fact of life'. This shared social reality hasbeen described at various levels of analysis, includingsingle organisations, organisational fields (multipleorganisations that operate from a common meaningsystem), and society-wide (Fiol and O'Connor, 2005).Examples include so-called faith-based organisationsand educational institutions.

Clearly, in cross-cultural settings, shared assumptionsabout taken-for-grantedness regarding the accept-ance of new and/or externally introduced organisa-tions, structures, systems or procedures are unlikelyto hold, as much international institutional develop-ment and capacity building history reveals. For exam-ple, the literature on rural development and technol-ogy transfer notes that in many cases, project-intro-duced administrative and organisational changesfailed to last beyond the donors' project lifecycles.Among the reasons often cited is a lack of embed-ding in the socio-cultural fabric of the country (see,for example, Lele 1975). Another example concernsstate enterprises. In many developing countries, pub-lic sector enterprises for services such as electricity,health, water, transportation infrastructure, environ-mental management and telecommunications wereassumed to be the only desirable form of organisa-tion. The introduction of private-sector provision hadto combat perceptions that private organisationswere not a legitimate organisational form for suchservices (see Henisz and Zelner, 2003; Cashore, 2002).Over time, such perceptions have changed, to agreater or lesser degree depending upon the country,indicating that taken-for-grantedness is notimmutable.

6

macy from social 'ceremonial' norms regarding howthey behave, e.g. values-driven, selflessness, moralrectitude, honesty, and so forth. As the scandals inthe United States with the United Way and NatureConservancy reveal, when expectations about non-profit behaviour were violated, the delegitimising'fallout' affected not just the offending organisa-tions, but the non-profit sector as a whole.

In addition to these general sources, some specifictechnical/operational sources of legitimacy havebeen identified. Legitimacy is conferred when organi-sational actors are perceived by influential con-stituencies as being consistent or in alignment with:

Law, including constitutional frameworks, as well asenabling legislation, statutory law, and regulations.Clearly, an organisation that operates in accordancewith the law and legal principles is, at some funda-mental level, accorded legitimacy. Such behaviourdemonstrates accountability, which reinforces attri-butions of legitimacy. Regulatory entities and so-called agencies of restraint are sources of legitimacyin that they apply 'explicit regulative processes: rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities'(Scott, 1995: 35). For example, in many countries,NGOs acquire a minimum degree of legitimacythrough registration, which certifies them as entitiesengaged in providing some type of public good.Further legitimacy is conferred to the extent thatNGOs are perceived to act accountably to representthe interests of their beneficiaries and/or members(Hudson, 2000; Lister, 2003).

Standards, codes and licensing. For many organisa-tions, such as schools, hospitals, social welfare agen-cies, etc., conformity with standards, codes andlicensed practices yields legitimacy gains. Licensingboards, professional accreditation bodies, oversightcommissions and funding agencies are examples ofentities whose assessments can determine an organ-isation's legitimacy (Ruef and Scott, 1998). A slightlyfuzzier variant of standards is 'best practices,' whereorganisations gain legitimacy by conforming towidely accepted professional judgements about howthey should operate.7 Responsiveness and accounta-bility to standards and codes are in many cases legal-ly mandated, thus linking to the first source of legiti-macy. In some cases, however, conformity to stan-dards is self-policing, carried out by associations ofprofessionals (e.g. doctors, financial planners) or oforganisations of a particular type (e.g. associations ofmanufacturers, city administrators, or watchdogNGOs).

Performance expectations. Organisations that meetstakeholders' expectations for effectiveness and effi-ciency are generally assessed as legitimate. The hugeliteratures on organisational performance, effective-ness and sustainability discuss the difficulties inmeasurement, particularly in sectors where outputsand outcomes are hard to detect and quantify, andthe problem of multiple stakeholders with differingor conflicting expectations. Thus organisations facethe challenge of which sources of legitimacy toattend to. As discussed above, the cause and effectconnections implied in performance may be more orless discernable, so in some cases meeting perform-ance expectations may be more related to Meyer andRowan's (1991) myth management than straightfor-ward production of goods and services.


Notes7 'Best practices' are fuzzy standards in the sense that the

term is often applied without clear definition, or systematicdetermination of in what sense and under whatcircumstances a particular practice is deemed 'best'.


7

4 Managing legitimacy As the discussion has shown, legitimacy in its varioustypes (normative, pragmatic and cognitive) derivesfrom the judgements of observers of an organisa-tion's attributes, qualities and achievements. Thesources of those assessments cover a wide range,and coupled with the number and variation inobservers, create a complex environment for anyorganisation to pursue legitimation. Dependence onpredominant environmental forces notwithstanding,the multiplicity and variability of legitimacy dynam-ics create managerial 'space' for individual organisa-tions to manoeuvre within for those sources of legiti-macy that they can control or influence.

What can managers do to increase/maintain legiti-macy? Managerial actions related to legitimacy fallwithin the dynamic of aligning the organisation withits environment. To oversimplify, alignment strate-gies to increase/maintain legitimacy can be dividedinto three categories of action, as illustrated in Table2: (a) conforming, (b) informing and (c) manipulating(see Suchman, 1995; Cashore, 2002). Conformingactions relate to fitting the organisation to sociallyaccepted forms and practices, and are reflected inisomorphic strategies (see below). Informing actionsconcern communicating with constituents in waysthat connect to selected terminology, images, beliefsand symbols that confer legitimacy on the organisa-tion. Manipulating actions reach beyond choosingfrom among an existing array of socio-cultural norms

and cognitive maps to encompass efforts to influenceconstituents' perceptions - sometimes to the point ofreframing social reality - using a variety of tools asso-ciated with social marketing, advertising and advoca-cy and influence campaigns. It should be noted thatwhile analytically informing can be separated frommanipulating, the empirical distinction betweenthem is not always clear.

Cross-cutting these three broad action categories areissues such as stakeholders and constituents, theimportance of reputation, and the links among thevarious types of legitimacy. Whichever action strategyis employed, these issues are relevant in helpingorganisations both to build legitimacy and to main-tain it over time. The literature offers some guidance,as summarised in the discussion below.

4.1 Conforming: look like other organisations

One of the strongest threads in the literature relatesto what the neo-institutionalists refer to as institu-tional isomorphism, where environmental pressuresand/or decisions by organisational actors lead theorganisation to adopt structures, procedures, systemsand terminology shared by other organisations of thesame type. Since these structures, procedures, sys-tems and terminology enjoy normative and cognitivelegitimacy, organisations that adopt them increasetheir chances of success and survival. As Meyer andRowan (1983: 30) note, 'incorporating externally legiti-

Legitimacy strategy Actions

Conforming - look like otherorganisations (isomorphism)

Organisation adopts structures, procedures, and systems found in organisa-tions of the same type or category that are already perceived as legitimate.

Informing - communicate in'legitimated vocabularies'

Organisation communicates with stakeholders using terminology associatedwith socially legitimate goals, activities, and outcomes.

Manipulating - exploit mythsand ceremonies

Organisation manages myths (e.g. socially determined sense-making aboutcause and effect), ceremonies (e.g. socially appropriate procedures and prac-tices), and symbols to create new beliefs and values through manipulation ofcognitive legitimacy.

Table 2. Managing organisational legitimacy.

expectations and needs of those with a direct self-interest in the organisation. Or it can aim for norma-tive and cognitive legitimacy, communicating to con-stituencies using terms and symbols that appeal tobroader societal standards, values and cognitive maps.8

In some situations, particularly where new organisa-tions are seeking to innovate, their actions risk beingseen as contrary to normative legitimacy, e.g. theyare going against accepted standards or practices(see Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). In such cases organisa-tions can seek to innovate in ways that reinforce cog-nitive legitimacy by developing communicationsstrategies that explain the rationale for their innova-tions (connecting to sense-making) and/or linkinginnovations to established societal values (connect-ing to taken-for-grantedness).

4.3 Manipulating: exploit myths and ceremony

Manipulative legitimacy strategies aim to managemyths, ceremonies and symbols so as to create newbeliefs. Using legitimated vocabularies to describewho the organisation is and what it does canbecome a segue to manipulating so as to createlegitimacy. Manipulation illustrates the interdepend-ence among different types of legitimacy. By defini-tion, manipulation addresses cognitive legitimacyonly, but it is through the manipulation of normativemyths and symbols that it is achieved.

Symbol management can mean engaging in activi-ties that allow or encourage constituents to associ-ate the organisation with valued activities. For exam-ple, regarding the relationship between an NGO andits funders, monitoring and reporting tasks are use-ful not so much in terms of the actual informationthat they contain, but because they legitimate theNGO's activities. 'What counts is that the [monitor-ing] studies are produced' (Ebrahim, 2003: 97). Thisexample illustrates the fuzzy boundary betweeninforming and manipulating. While the NGOs areproviding reports - a classic informing action - theyare also engaged in a subtle form of manipulation,demonstrating their responsiveness to funders andtheir commitment to monitoring and being moni-tored, quite apart from the utility of the informationprovided. In short, this monitoring activity createsthe belief that the NGOs are well-managed andeffective in producing results, whether or not there is

mated formal structures increases the commitmentof internal participants and external constituents.And the use of external assessment criteria … canenable the organisation to remain successful bysocial definition, buffering it from failure'.

DiMaggio and Powell (1991: 67) identify three mecha-nisms, which in practice have some overlap, thatinduce isomorphic change: '(1) coercive isomorphismthat stems from political influence and the problemof legitimacy; (2) mimetic isomorphism resultingfrom standard responses to uncertainty; and (3) nor-mative isomorphism, associated with professionalisa-tion'. Coercive isomorphism arises from pressuresthat result when one organisation is dependentupon others, informally or formally, for resources ofvarious kinds. Clear examples are the pressures forconformity that derive from funding requirementsand legal and regulatory restrictions. For instance,NGOs that depend upon government funds and thatseek to demonstrate legitimacy to constituents makechoices that lead to isomorphism (Brinkerhoff andBrinkerhoff, 2002). When organisations are lookingfor ways to address new tasks, they face uncertainty,and a common strategy is to imitate how otherorganisations have operated; this is the essence ofmimetic isomorphism. Normative isomorphism, asDiMaggio and Powell define it, results from thepower of professionals in organisations to exert con-trol over how the organisation operates such that itconforms to professionally determined norms, stan-dards and practices (see Fiol and O'Connor, 2005).While pressures toward isomorphism have usuallybeen analysed in organisations in the private andnon-profit sectors, these forces are operative in thepublic sector as well (Frumkin, 2004).

4.2 Informing: communicate in 'legitimatedvocabularies'

Informing actions relate to communication strategiesthat appeal to pragmatic, normative, and/or cognitivelegitimacy drivers. Such strategies employ terminolo-gy that connects the organisation in the eyes ofstakeholders to socially legitimate goals and activi-ties. 'Organisations described in legitimated vocabu-laries are assumed to be oriented to collectivelydefined, and often collectively mandated, ends'(Meyer and Rowan 1983: 31). This strategy can be pur-sued in a relatively targeted way, where it relatesmost closely to pragmatic legitimacy, addressing the


8 Notes8 As several sources warn, however, this strategy can backfire

if constituents judge that the organisation's efforts to usethese legitimated vocabularies are cynical or hypocritical.

any empirical evidence to support this belief.A clear illustration of managerial action intended tomanipulate is reframing issues, problems, proceduresand activities to evolve new understandings, cogni-tive maps and symbols. Rather than seeking simplyto select among myths and ceremonies for thosethat will garner the highest legitimacy returns, thisstrategy actively intervenes to try to change myths,ceremonies and socially constructed models, therebycreating new avenues to legitimacy for the organisa-tion. An interesting example comes from the localfamily planning association in the village of Koppa,India, where to increase legitimacy for the associa-tion's services, staff created a new goddess of familywelfare, Kalyaneshwari, to inspire women to limitfamily size (Jung, 1987).

Within the organisational change literature, perhapsthe leading proponents of reframing as a manage-ment and leadership strategy are Bolman and Deal(1991). The policy literature also addresses reframingin terms of adjusting policy objectives and pro-grammes so as to manipulate constituency percep-tions and attract support for change (see Brinkerhoffand Crosby, 2002; Stone, 1996). As noted above,among the resources that constituencies have tooffer is legitimation.

4.4 Stakeholder dynamics

Given the complexity of the various types of legiti-macy, an organisation is unlikely to be in a positionto satisfy all actual and potential constituents whomay confer or withhold legitimacy. Managers willneed to choose key environmental stakeholders torespond to, and avoid temptations to try to pleaseeveryone. The ability to legitimise (or delegitimise)can be seen as one among a variety of resources thatorganisational stakeholders possess, thus the deter-mination of which stakeholders to pay attention to,from the manager's perspective, becomes an exercisein stakeholder analysis, and the crafting of strategiesand visions that will enlist stakeholders to allocatetheir legitimising resources in favour of the organisa-tion.

How much effort should be put into such strategiesdepends to some extent on what the organisationseeks to accomplish. If the good or service that theorganisation produces is well recognised as valuedand desirable, then it is likely that a heavy invest-


9

ment in actions intended to promote legitimacy arenot necessary. If, on the other hand, the organisationis engaged in activities that are contentious ordepart sharply from past practice, legitimisationfrom key stakeholders will become much moreimportant (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002).

From the perspective of the stakeholders, which onesthe organisation courts for their legitimisingresources becomes an issue of power. Whose legiti-mation matters is determined by relative social,political, and economic power. As Lister (2003) indi-cates, the organisation theory literature has notdelved in much detail into power questions, althoughRuef and Scott (1998) argue that examining featuresof those doing the legitimating is important to get-ting specific about legitimacy. Lukes (1974) shedslight on how power is socially constructed in thatmore powerful actors are able to shape the viewsand needs of other, less powerful actors. This dynam-ic means that the nature of power in inter-organisa-tional relationships leads actors to believe that act-ing in the interests of more powerful partners is con-sistent with their own interests.

4.5 The importance of reputation

Although, as previously mentioned, some analystsargue for a conceptual separation between reputa-tion and legitimacy, these are closely connected(Deephouse and Carter, 2005). Building a reputationfor performance can contribute to pragmatic legiti-macy. Building a reputation for accountability andresponsiveness also contributes to pragmatic legiti-macy, particularly when organisations face pressuresto deviate attention from their primary constituents(e.g. mission creep, chasing funding) (see Ebrahim,2003). Accountability and responsiveness also link tonormative and cognitive legitimacy, which extendstheir reputational value beyond the organisation'simmediate constituents. As Deephouse and Carter(2005) note, an organisation with a strong reputationis able to deviate from standard practices and stillmaintain its status and legitimacy; thus reputationenhances strategic managerial space and room tomanoeuvre.

Strategic options for reputation enhancementregarding the various forms of legitimacy include: (a)building those reputations within the organisation,or (b) partnering with other organisations that


10

already possess the desired forms of legitimacy.Partnership, done effectively, can engage a widerrange of organisational capacities in the service ofachieving shared goals than would be possiblethrough independent organisational effort. This canincrease reputation and legitimacy for all partners.

4.6 Links among types of legitimacy

As the discussion has made clear, legitimacy is bothmulti-faceted and complex. While analytic distinc-tions among types of legitimacy can be made, inpractice they tend to merge with one another, partic-ularly for organisations operating in the social sec-tors. Recognising the fuzzy boundaries among thetypes of legitimacy and their connections allows formanagement strategies that build legitimacythrough combinations of efforts to develop pragmat-ic, normative and cognitive legitimacy that creativelyblend conforming, informing and manipulation.'Legitimacy is always a matter of degree butstrengths in one area can compensate for weakness-es in another' (Thirkell-White, 2003: 7). For example, areputation for transparency and accountability,which confers normative legitimacy, may enable anorganisation to weather occasional performanceproblems. Conversely, when good performance fulfilsexpectations, and leads to pragmatic legitimacy, con-stituents may be less likely to raise questions aboutorganisational 'quality' issues.

4.7 Legitimacy and capacity

The literature suggests that organisations need legit-imacy for long-term survival and sustainability. A keyfactor in achieving sustained impact in internationaldevelopment settings is the legitimacy of oftenexternally introduced innovations or reforms. TheECDPM study's focus on endogenous capacity factorsraises the salience of legitimacy. Legitimacy is inessence a relationship between an organisation andits constituents. The perspective that says that legiti-macy can be managed implies that there are capaci-ties associated with increasing legitimacy. Legitimacyis mentioned as a capacity indicator in Morgan(1997). Proactive strategic management skills can beidentified and taught. The close links among legiti-macy, institutionalisation and sustainability suggestthat legitimacy is worth paying attention to as anelement of capacity building. While inclusion of legit-

imacy in capacity building recognises the importanceof symbols, beliefs and socially constructed realitiesthat organisations need to deal with, it is equallyimportant not to treat the legitimacy concept sobroadly that it subsumes the majority of the analyticterritory in organisation-environment interactions.Suchman's (1995) comprehensive and in-depth treat-ment of legitimacy runs this risk, where manyaspects usually discussed under organisational per-formance are conflated with the notion of pragmaticlegitimacy.

Nonetheless, two key dimensions of the legitimacyliterature stand out as having implications foranalysing organisational capacity and capacity build-ing. The first of these is the isomorphism dynamic.These dynamics (coercive, mimetic and normativeisomorphism) highlight the extent to which effortsto increase and maintain legitimacy are circum-scribed by environmental factors that constrain indi-vidual organisations to varying degrees. Thus capaci-ty and capacity building are not solely functions ofwhat happens relative to the organisation targetedfor strengthening. Isomorphism dynamics pushorganisations (and their capacity builders) in thedirection of developing those capacities that aredeemed necessary and desirable by (a) other organi-sations in the same category (e.g. NGOs, public serv-ice delivery agencies, private sector entities), (b)those environmental actors on which the organisa-tion is dependent for resources (e.g. funders), and (c)users of the goods and services the organisation pro-duces. Thus what looks like 'cookie cutter' capacitybuilding in the aggregate (across several organisa-tions) may be less a mindless blueprint than a func-tional response to organisation-environment interac-tions that confer legitimacy.

The second perspective that a legitimacy focusbrings is the socially constructed nature of legitima-cy, and by extension, accompanying attributions ofcapacity. Organisational capabilities are not simply aquestion of technical effectiveness and efficiency, butare socially validated attributions of performanceand capacity. Thus an essential element of capacitydevelopment may in fact relate to normative andcognitive legitimacy, where constituents assess anorganisation not so much in terms of its 'real' capaci-ties, but in terms of the extent to which what theorganisation does, and what it looks like, fulfil soci-etally shared notions of what is appropriate anddesirable. Thus, capacity building strategies need to

tive legitimacy. Cognitive legitimacy played a role inthat health care is a well recognised and appreciatedservice across all societies, including Uganda; LacorHospital's activities, services, and capacities meshedcompletely with societal expectations about howhealth providers should behave. The hospitalreceived additional legitimacy through its enactmentof values of religious principles of service and self-sacrifice (e.g. the death of one of the founders fromHIV/AIDS).

5.2 COEP, Brazil

COEP (Comitê de Entidades no Combate à Fome epela Vida) is a network in Brazil devoted to combat-ing hunger and poverty. It is a voluntary inter-organi-sational structure that combines actors from thepublic, civil society and private sectors. It began in1993, and has grown to more than 800 members inall of the country's 27 states. Four factors emerge asimportant in explaining COEP's success. First, the net-work has a strong self-definition, including mission,objectives and core values. Second, it has creativeleadership, where the individuals involved have ahigh degree of legitimacy and have been able tobuild on that to create organisational legitimacy forthe network and its goals. Third, COEP's governanceand management structures have allowed it toadapt to changing circumstances flexibly and rapidly.And fourth, the network has been able to expand,both in numbers and geographic scope, thus increas-ing its visibility, performance and impact.

The COEP case demonstrates how the network'slegitimacy and reputation as a central actor in publicadvocacy have contributed to its capacity and per-formance. Personal legitimacy, embodied in the net-work's leaders, has been critical. As COEP's advocacyefforts generated results for members, pragmaticlegitimacy increased, and as the network has grownin stature it has been able to tap into normativelegitimacy as well.

5.3 SISDUK, Indonesia

During the period 1997-2002, Takalar district inIndonesia introduced a participatory district develop-ment system intended to engage local populations incommunity planning and development, with assis-tance from the Japanese International Cooperation


11

pay attention not just to technical capabilities (e.g.systems, procedures) but to the softer side as well,including conformity with societal 'myths' (e.g.socially determined sense-making about cause andeffect), and 'ceremonies' (e.g. about socially appropri-ate procedures and practices). This may be the criticalvalue-added of a legitimacy perspective on capacitybuilding. This suggests that not just what an organi-sation does, but how it frames and communicateswhat it does, is important for legitimacy. An addedsignificant factor is the power dimension: who isattributing legitimacy, who is judging capacity andwhose assessments count.

5 Legitimacy and the ECDPM cases

Several of the ECDPM case studies mention legitima-cy. However, the level of detail provided is minimal,which does not allow for much substantive applica-tion of the analytical framework related to legitima-cy and legitimation. What follows is a suggestiveclassification of the 'snapshots' of legitimacy fromseven ECDPM cases (see Appendix for details).

5.1 Lacor Hospital, Uganda

Lacor Hospital is located in northern Uganda wherefor years Ugandans, particularly children, have beensubjected to cross-border depredations from theSudanese rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army.The hospital was founded by Catholic missionaries in1961; its high levels of medical professionalism andservice delivery performance led to legitimacy for thehospital among the patients it serves and membersof the government health service. Museveni's gov-ernment has recognised the value of the servicesprovided in a region where violence and conflict areongoing, and has integrated the hospital into thenational health system, along with other missionaryhealth facilities in the country.

In the Uganda case, Lacor Hospital, as a function ofdelivering medical care according to established pro-fessional standards and norms, and serving benefici-aries in a part of the country where services havebeen scarce, benefited from pragmatic and norma-

ESDU appears to have been able to translate its ini-tial pragmatic legitimacy, gained by responding to itsimmediate stakeholders into cognitive legitimacy(some degree of taken-for-grantedness) and sustain-ability. The mandate and standards created by the StGeorge's Declaration were a useful source of norma-tive legitimacy that ESDU was able to tap into. As theunit developed a reputation for its capabilities andperformance, its constituents accorded it increasedlegitimacy, which has assisted ESDU in aligning itselfsuccessfully with its environment in ways thatappear to assure ongoing support, despite some ofthe internal weaknesses it has had to confront.

5.5 Church organisations, Papua New Guinea

Christian church organisations in Papua New Guinea(PNG) have been active in delivering services, particu-larly health and education, advocating for social jus-tice and against corruption, encouraging citizen par-ticipation in policy debates, and facilitating conflictresolution, mediation and peace-building. PNG isdiverse country with many ethnic groups, persistentpoverty, a relatively weak governance system withlimited service delivery capacity, ongoing inter-tribalconflict and violence, geographically isolated islandsand densely forested highlands, and high populationgrowth rates. Church organisations, whose presencein PNG dates from the arrival of missionaries in thelate 19th century, play an important role in civil socie-ty. They enjoy broad-based support among the popu-lace, and operate about half of the country's healthfacilities as well as a substantial number of schools.Church leaders are well respected and speak out on arange of social and political issues.

These church organisations benefit from all threetypes of legitimacy, which contribute to their per-formance capacities. PNG is a country with a strongChristian tradition, with up to 99% of the populationidentifying themselves as Christian. Church organisa-tions are accorded strong normative and cognitivelegitimacy in a society where Christian religious val-ues are both widespread and looked up to. Theseforms of legitimacy are recognised as important con-tributors to the churches' capacity to reach acrosstribal divisions to mediate disputes and promote rec-onciliation, and to serve as an effective interlocutorwith government on social issues, good governance,political reform, anti-corruption, and so on. In addi-tion, church organisations have pragmatic legitimacy


12

Agency (JICA). The system was called SISDUK, andbesides participatory planning, it also had a smallgrants component to provide communities withresources to undertake the activities that they hadplanned. SISDUK field officers were the linksbetween communities and local government struc-tures. The project was not a replacement for localgovernment planning but was seen as a complementto facilitate the engagement of excluded popula-tions.

At the end of the JICA assistance, SISDUK was trans-formed from a donor project to a formal district pro-gramme. This meant that SISDUK was incorporatedinto the local development budget and was subjectto oversight by the district parliament. This integra-tion accorded more legitimacy to SISDUK. SISDUKprocedures and systems were integrated into localgovernment structures.

The SISDUK case illustrates the dynamics of isomor-phism; as SISDUK took on the features of a standardset of local government planning and resource allo-cation practices it acquired more normative and cog-nitive legitimacy. SISDUK looked and was treated likeother routine and accepted programmes, and as such'made sense' to local actors. Its incorporation into thebudget system suggests that it achieved taken-for-grantedness.

5.4 ESDU, Eastern Caribbean

The Environment and Sustainable Development Unit(ESDU) of the Organisation of Eastern CaribbeanStates (OECS) is located on St Lucia. A small unit with13 staff, ESDU was born from a series of donor-fund-ed projects to support natural resources manage-ment and environmental protection, beginning in1986. Stakeholders are member states, donors andlocal environmental NGOs. The St George'sDeclaration on the Principles of EnvironmentalSustainability, signed by OECS Member States in2001, provided a stronger mandate and legitimacy tonational environment ministries and ESDU than theyhad had previously, and translated into more supportfrom finance ministries and international agencies.ESDU was able to manage the transition from donorproject funding to Member State support for its staffin 2005. Legitimacy and good performance con-tributed to this outcome.


13

that derives from their service delivery functions.Church-managed health facilities and schools arerecognised as being of superior quality in many casesto government ones, and are widely appreciated bycitizens. In the PNG case, the links between legitima-cy and capacity are clear.

5.6 Rwanda Revenue Authority, Rwanda

Post-conflict Rwanda is engaged in a long process ofrecovery, reconciliation and rebuilding. Among thetasks facing the government as it re-establishes thenation's administrative capacity and rehabilitatesbasic facilities, is rebuilding the fiscal and financialfoundation for socioeconomic development andpoverty reduction. An organisation central to accom-plishing this task is the Rwanda Revenue Authority(RRA), created in 1997 with assistance from theDepartment for International Development (DfID,UK). In its short lifespan, the RRA has emerged as acapable and effective organisation that has built astrong performance record, increasing revenue col-lection from 9% of GDP in 1998 to 13% in 2003.

DfID's financial and technical assistance have beencritical to building the RRA's performance capacitythrough skills training, organisational structuringand systems and procedures development. A man-date from the president at the time the RRA was cre-ated gave the organisation normative legitimacy andpersonal political support that observers credit withhelping the RRA to become established and recog-nised by key stakeholders. Normative legitimacy wasfurther strengthened by the legal and regulatoryframework supporting tax collection. The RRA's cul-ture of performance and integrity, and its growingreputation for competence and honesty, contributedto its pragmatic legitimacy. The organisation's seniorleadership and staff have taken a strategic orienta-tion to building relations with citizens and privateindustry (a major source of tax revenue) in ways thathave increased societal acceptance of the need topay taxes and the benefits to the country of doingso. For example, the RRA conducted public relationsand information dissemination campaigns. It hasdeveloped business processes specific to various cus-tomer groups that not only increase tax collectionefficiency, but enhance transparency and accounta-bility as well. Through these measures, the RRA hasgenerated cognitive legitimacy through its embodi-ment of good governance and its influence on socie-tal values.

5.7 Decentralised education services, Pakistan

The government of Pakistan introduced an ambitiousdecentralisation plan in 2001, which aimed todevolve a variety of functions and service deliveryresponsibilities to sub-national levels, and to intro-duce new elected governments at district and sub-district levels. Among the anticipated outcomes wereincreased accountability of local governments to citi-zens, and improved service delivery performance.International donors have been supporting capacitybuilding and policy reform to assist Pakistan withimplementing the decentralisation plan. The per-formance of the education system is critically weak;education indicators reveal low enrolment rates(especially among girls), poor retention and highdrop-out rates, rural-urban inequities, low teacherqualifications, high teacher absenteeism, and inade-quate school infrastructure.

Government efforts to improve education services,heavily supported by donors, have yet to yield theresults anticipated, and a variety of analyses havenoted factors that have constrained achievements.These include an entrenched and hierarchical publicsector bureaucracy, confusion and contradiction indevolution of responsibilities and resources to sub-national levels, weak and perverse performanceincentives, inadequate budgeting systems, politicalpower of teachers to resist reform, feeble voicemechanisms to incorporate community inputs, andthe lack of citizen awareness of education servicedelivery, leading to low expectations.

Although the case does not explicitly raise issues oflegitimacy, some organisation-environment dynam-ics related to legitimacy can nonetheless be dis-cerned. Two main points emerge. First, it wouldappear that underlying cultural patterns in Pakistanrelated to the role and status of the public sectorbureaucracy, and traditional relations between thestate and citizens, accord normative and cognitivelegitimacy to autocratic organisational behavioursthat reinforce existing bureaucratic practices.Predictably, capacity building focused on technicaland management skills through formal training, hasmade little headway in the face of this widely sharedsocio-cultural mindset.

Second, since the development and maintenance oflegitimacy depends upon links between an organisa-tion and its constituents, in situations where such


14

links are weak or attenuated, the pressures forchange and adaptation that legitimation can in prin-ciple bring to bear on the organisation do not playout in practice. Pakistan's education bureaucracyappears to be relatively impervious to such pres-sures. Accountability and governance reforms thathave been undertaken in many developing countriesseek precisely to create these links, so that govern-ments and service providers are subject to perform-ance pressures, and citizens have the means to with-draw their support (including attributions of norma-tive or pragmatic legitimacy) to non-performers.Thus, this case confirms that, in the absence ofaccountability links between service providers andusers - without which the potential enhancementsthat legitimacy can bring will fall short - capacitybuilding is unlikely to be successful.

Appendix: The ECDPM case studiesReports published by ECDPM related to the study of Capacity, Change and Performance are as follows:

Case studiesBolger, J. Mandie-Filer, A. and Hauck, V. 2005. Papua New Guinea's Health Sector: A review of capacity, change andperformance issues. Discussion Paper 57F. Maastricht: ECDPM.Hauck, V. 2004. Resilience and High Performance amidst Conflict, Epidemics and Extreme Poverty: The LacorHospital, Northern Uganda. Discussion Paper 57A. Maastricht: ECDPM.Hauck, V., Mandie-Filer, A. and Bolger, J. 2005. Ringing the Church Bell: The role of churches in governance and publicperformance in Papua New Guinea. Discussion Paper 57E. Maastricht: ECDPM.Land, T. 2004. Developing Capacity for Participatory Development in the context of Decentralisation: Takalar district,South Sulawesi province, Indonesia. Discussion Paper 57B. Maastricht: ECDPM.Land, T. 2004. Developing Capacity for Tax Administration: The Rwanda Revenue Authority. Discussion Paper 57D.Maastricht: ECDPM.Morgan, P. 2005. Organising for Large-scale System Change: The Environmental Action (ENACT) programme,Jamaica. Discussion Paper 57J. Maastricht: ECDPM.Morgan, P. 2005. Building Capabilities for Performance: The Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU)of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Discussion Paper 57K. Maastricht: ECDPM.Saxby, J. 2004. COEP - Comitê de Entidades no Combate à Fome e pela Vida - Mobilising against Hunger and for Life:An analysis of capacity and change in a Brazilian network. Discussion Paper 57C. Maastricht: ECDPM.Watson, D. and Khan, A.Q. 2005. Capacity Building for Decentralised Education Service Delivery in Pakistan.Discussion Paper 57G. Maastricht: ECDPM.Watson, D. and Yohannes, L. 2005. Capacity Building for Decentralised Education Service Delivery in Ethiopia.Discussion Paper 57H. Maastricht: ECDPM.Watson, D., Yohannes, L. and Khan, A.Q. 2005. Capacity Building for Decentralised Education Service Delivery inEthiopia and Pakistan: A comparative analysis. Discussion Paper 57I. Maastricht: ECDPM.

ECDPM. 2005. Study on Capacity, Change and Performance: Interim Report. Maastricht: ECDPM.


15

BibliographyAldrich, H.E. and C.M. Fiol. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy ofManagement Review 19(4): 645-670.Bhatta, G. 2003. Intent, risks and capability: Some considerations on rethinking organizational capability.International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3): 401-418.Boin, A. and C. Kofman-Bos. 2003. The Emergence of Public Institutions: Towards a Dynamic Theory ofInstitutional Birth and Development. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, JointSessions of Workshops, Edinburgh, 31 March-2 April.Bolman, L.G. and T.E. Deal. 1991. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Brinkerhoff, D.W. 1986. The evolution of current perspectives on institutional development: An organizationalfocus. In D.W. Brinkerhoff and J.-C. Garcia-Zamor, eds. Politics, Projects, and People: Institutional Development inHaiti. New York: Praeger, pp.11-62.Brinkerhoff, D.W. and B.L. Crosby. 2002. Managing Policy Reform: Concepts and Tools for Decision-Makers inDeveloping and Transitioning Countries. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.Brinkerhoff, D.W. and A.A. Goldsmith. 1992. Promoting the sustainability of development institutions: A frame-work for strategy. World Development 20(3): 369-383.Brinkerhoff, J.M. and D.W. Brinkerhoff. 2002. Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective:Evolution, themes, and new directions. Public Administration and Development 22(1): 3-19.Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state-market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance 15(4): 503-529.Deephouse, D.L. and S.M. Carter. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy andorganizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies 42(2): 329-360.DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell. 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationali-ty in organizational fields. In W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.63-83.Eades, D. 1997. Capacity building: An Approach to People-centred Development. Oxford: Oxfam UK.Ebrahim, A. 2003. NGOs and Organizational Change: Discourse, Reporting and Learning. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Esman, M.J. 1972. The elements of institution building. In J. Eaton, ed. Institution Building and Development.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 21-39.Fiol, C.M. and E.J. O'Connor. 2005. Stuff matters: Artifacts, identity, and legitimacy in the U.S. medical profes-sion. In A. Rafaeli and M.G. Pratt, eds. Artifacts and Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesInc. (in press).Frumkin, P. 2004. Institutional isomorphism and public sector organization. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory 14(3): 283-309.Fukuda-Parr, S., C. Lopes, and K. Malik, eds. 2002. Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems. NewYork and London: UNDP and Earthscan.Hannan, M.T. and J.H. Freeman. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Henisz, W.J. and B.A. Zelner. 2003. Legitimacy, Interest Group Pressures and Change in Emergent Institutions: TheCase of Foreign Investors and Host Country Governments. Working Paper No. 589. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Business School, William Davidson Institute.Hudson, A. 2000. Making the connection: Legitimacy claims, legitimacy chains and northern NGOs' interna-tional advocacy. In D. Lewis and T. Wallace, eds. New Roles and Relevance: Development NGOs and the Challengeof Change. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, pp.89-99.


16

Jung, A. 1987. Unveiling India: A Woman's Journey. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.Lele, U. 1975. The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, for the World Bank.Lister, S. 2003. NGO legitimacy: Technical issue or social construct? Critique of Anthropology 23(2): 175-192.Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W.W.Powell and P.J. DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, pp.41-63.Meyer, J.W. and W.R. Scott. 1983. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Morgan, P. 1997. The Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators. Ottawa: Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency, Policy Branch, December.Morgan, P. and A. Qualman. 1996. Institutional and Capacity Development, Results-based Management andOrganizational Performance. Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency, Policy Branch, February.Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. NewYork: Harper and Row.Potter, C. and R. Brough. 2004. Systemic capacity building: A hierarchy of needs. Health Policy and Planning19(5): 336-345.Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Ruef, M. and W.R. Scott. 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival inchanging institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 43(4): 877-904.Saxby, J. and M. Schachter. 2003. Civil Society and Public Governance: Getting a Fix on Legitimacy. Briefing Note.Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.Scott, W.R.. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Stone, D. 1996. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-making. New York: W.W. Norton.Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of ManagementReview 20(3): 571-610.Thirkell-White, B. 2003. Institutional Legitimacy and the International Financial Architecture. Paper presented atthe European Consortium for Political Research, Joint Sessions of Workshops, Edinburgh, 31 March-2 April.Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (trans. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons). NewYork: Free Press.Zucker, L.G. 1989. Combining institutional theory and population ecology: No legitimacy, no history. AmericanSociological Review 54(4): 542-545.Zucker, L.G. 1991. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. In W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio, eds.The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.83-108.

The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) aims to improve internationalcooperation between Europe and countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

Created in 1986 as an independent foundation, the Centre’s objectives are:• to enhance the capacity of public and private actors in ACP and other low-income

countries; and • to improve cooperation between development partners in Europe and the ACP Region.

The Centre focuses on four interconnected themes:

• Development Policy and EU External Action• ACP-EU Economic and Trade Cooperation• Multi-Actor Partnerships and Governance• Development Cooperation and Capacity

The Centre collaborates with other organisations and has a network of contributors in the European and theACP countries. Knowledge, insight and experience gained from process facilitation, dialogue, networking,infield research and consultations are widely shared with targeted ACP and EU audiences throughinternational conferences, focussed briefing sessions, electronic media and key publications.

This study was undertaken by ECDPM in the context of the OECD/DAC study on Capacity. Change andPerformance financed by the Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Program (AUSAID), the CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), theDutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the SwedishInternational Development Agency (Sida), as well as contributions from several of the organisations who arethe focus of the case studies.

The results of the study, interim reports and an elaborated methodology can be consulted at www.capacity.orgor www.ecdpm.org. For further information, please contact Ms Heather Baser ([email protected]).

ISSN 1571-7569

The European Centre forDevelopment Policy ManagementOnze Lieve Vrouweplein 21NL-6211 HE Maastricht, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)43 350 29 00Fax.: +31 (0)43 350 29 [email protected] www.ecdpm.org

05-58a-e brinkerhoff finalecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/dp-58a... · 2019-04-25 · ongoing...

Documents