INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND INDIVIDUAL AGENCY

As noted in the Introduction, it is convenient to conceive of social institutions as possessed of five dimensions, namely, activity, structure, function, culture, and sanctions. However, it needs to be kept in mind that this is potentially misleading because, as we saw above, there are conceptual differences between functions and ends. On some accounts, function is a quasi-causal notion (Cohen 1978, chap. 9); on others, it is a teleological notion, albeit one that does not necessarily involve the existence of any mental states (Ryan 1970, chap. 8).

Although the structure, function, and culture of an institution provide a framework within which individuals act, they do not fully determine the actions of individuals. There are a number of reasons why this is so. For one thing, rules, norms, and ends cannot cover every contingency that might arise; for another, rules, norms, and so on themselves need to be interpreted and applied. Moreover, changing circumstances and unforeseeable problems make it desirable to vest individuals with discretionary powers to rethink and adjust old rules, norms, and ends, and sometimes elaborate new ones.

Inevitably the individuals who occupy institutional roles are possessed of varying degrees of discretionary power in relation to their actions. These discretionary powers are of different kinds and operate at different levels. For example, senior- and middle-level public servants have discretion in the way they implement policies, in their allocations of priorities and resources, and in the methods and criteria of evaluation of programs.