¹ Keohane, Robert O., “Institutionalizarion in the United Nations General Assembly,” International Organization, Autumn 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 4), p. 859CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² See the essays in the special issue of International Organization, Autumn 1970 (Vol. 24, No. 4), especially those by Haas, Ernst B., Nye, Joseph S. Jr, and myselfGoogle Scholar.

³ Keohane, , International Organization, Vol. 23, No. 4, p. 860Google Scholar. Keohane generously credits me with some paternal responsibility for its use. I would, in turn, credit him with the more generic observation that the field of international organization has suffered (by comparison with that of regional integration) from the marked absence of a dependent variable. Our respective musings subsequently led us in different directions, however.

⁴ Ibid., p. 869.

⁵ This concept has been frequendy, if often ambiguously, used by theorists of organizational structure. For a good summary of the literature see Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Robert, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), pp. 223–234Google Scholar.

⁶ Deutsch, Karl W., Politics and Government: How People Decide Their Fate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970), p. 142Google Scholar. Deutsch adds, “To know where [it] will go, we must also know something about what is going on inside [it].” On this point cf., Keohane, Robert O., “A Reply to David A. Kay's ‘Note,’” International Organization, Autumn 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 4), pp. 958–959Google Scholar.

⁷ It seems worth emphasizing that “institutionalization” and “organizational development” are processes which may vary independently of each other. Or, following C. Northcote Parkinson, one might consider presence of the former as evidence of a form of structural sclerosis antithetical to attainment of the latter. In either case “institutionalization,” as used by Keohane, only monitors organizational change in one of the four functional domains (integral integration) discussed below.

⁸ These were first elaborated in Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., and Shils, E., Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1953), pp. 242–245Google Scholar. A concise and useful restatement can be found in Parsons, T. and Smelser, N., Economy and Society: A Study in the Integration of Economic and Social Theory (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1956), pp. 13–20Google Scholar.

⁹ Mitchell, William C., Sociological Analysis and Politics: The Theories of Talcott Parsons (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1967), p. 62Google Scholar. I have found this “translation” of great utility in my operationalist exploitation of Parsons's thought.

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 63–64.

¹¹ Guttman, Louis, “The Basis for Scalogram Analysis,” in Measurement and Prediction, ed. Stouffer, Samuel A. et al. (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1950)Google Scholar, is the original, seminal statement on the utility and characteristics of scalogram analysis. Zeisel, Hans in his Say It with Figures (4th ed. rev.; New York: Harper and Row, 1957), pp. 91–127Google Scholar, offers a particularly clear and concise description of the technique. Essentially it consists of ordering a set of dichotomized (yes/no) attributes by degree of difficulty and testing whether those units which are scored positively on some more difficult, scarce, or demanding items are likely to have also scored positively on all “lesser” ones. Conversely, those failing to have the most elementary, frequent, or easiest items are not expected to have any of the “higher order” qualities.

¹² Freeman, Linton C. and Winch, Robert F., “Societal Complexity: An Empirical Test of a Typology of Societies,” American Journal of Sociology, 03 1957 (Vol. 62, No. 5), pp. 461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Buck, Gary L. and Jacobson, Alvin L., “Social Evolution and Structural-Functional Analysis: An Empirical Test,” American Sociological Review, 06 1968 (Vol. 33, No. 3), pp. 343–355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁴ Schwartz, Richard D. and Miller, James C., “Legal Evolution and Societal Complexity,” American Journal of Sociology, 09 1964 (Vol. 70, No. 2), pp. 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Young, Ruth C., “A Structural Approach to Development,” Journal of Developing Areas, 04 1968 (Vol. 11, No. 3), pp. 363–376Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Udy, Stanley H. Jr, “‘Bureaucratic’ Elements in Organizations: Some Research Findings,” American Sociological Review, 08 1958 (Vol. 22, No. 4), pp. 415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also by the same author, “Administrative Rationality, Social Setting and Organizational Development,” American Journal of Sociology, 11 1962 (Vol. 68, No. 3), pp. 299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Young, Ruth C., “Land Reform Policy in Latin America Before and After the Bogota Conference,” Rural Sociology, 12 1969 (Vol. 34, No. 4), pp. 537–545Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Snow, Peter G., “A Scalogram Analysis of Political Development,” American Behavioral Scientist, 03 1966 (Vol. 9, No. 7), pp. 33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general discussion of scalogram techniques applied to structural attributes consult Carneiro, Robert L., “Scale Analysis as an Instrument for the Study of Cultural Evolution,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Summer 1962 (Vol. 18, No. 2), pp. 149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Goodenough, Ward L., “Some Applications of Guttman Scale Analysis to Ethnography and Cultural Theory,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Summer 1963 (Vol. 19, No. 2), pp. 235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ A word of methodological caution is in order, however. As Udy has pointed out, the statistical verification of scaled properties at one point in time is not a reliable basis for inferring process, i.e., that the structural properties were acquired in that observed sequence of difficulty or scarcity. A given unit may acquire a number of properties simultaneously (by charter or package deal) or it may have arrived at its existing level of complexity or development by “decay,” i.e., by losing previously acquired characteristics. See his “Dynamic Inferences from Static Data,” American Journal of Sociology, 03 1965 (Vol. 70, No. 5), pp. 625–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Of course, these problems disappear in the event of a scale sufficiently discrete to measure change over time within a single organization. Here is one of the key points at which comparative and case study approaches can best inform each other.

²⁰ See Smoker, Paul, “Nation State Escalation and International Integration,” Journal of Peace Research, 1967 (Vol. 4, No. 1), pp. 61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haas, Michael, “A Functional Approach to International Organization,” Journal of Politics, 08 1965 (Vol. 27, No. 3), pp. 498–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Codding, George Jr, “A Systems Approach to the Comparative Study of International Organization” (Paper prepared for the Study Group on International Organization, European Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Geneva, 1966)Google Scholar; and Alger, Chadwick F., “Comparisons of Intranational and International Politics,” American Political Science Review, 06 1963 (Vol. 57, No. 2), pp. 406–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Human Relations Area Files (New Haven, Conn: Human Relations Area Files, 1955)Google Scholar; Russett, Bruce M. et al. , World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (Tools and Methods of Comparative Research, No. 1) (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; and Banks, Arthur S. and Textor, Robert B., A Cross-Polity Survey (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

²² The current research of Raymond Tanter promises to make much of this “objective” data more readily accessible. His strategy of inquiry, however, differs from mine in that he uses the much broader system categories of Eastonian inspiration, and he relies on factor analysis for dimensionalizing a great quantity of data on environmental conditions, conversion mechanisms, and outputs. Here I have focused exclusively on structural characteristics and organizational behavior (“conversion mechanisms”). See Tanter, Raymond, “A Systems Analysis Guide for Testing Theories of International Political Development” (Paper delivered at the Sixty-second Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 09 6–10, 1966)Google Scholar.

²³ By Edward Miles's calculation there were 194 IGOs as of 1966–1967: 21 “UN family” IGOs; eight “European IGOs”; and 165 “other IGOs.” The respective frequencies in my haphazard sample are eight, four, and 32. See his “Organizations and Integration in International Systems,” International Studies Quarterly, 06 1968 (Vol. 12, No. 2), p. 197Google Scholar.

²⁴ For example, in revising items for “latent pattern maintenance” I would pay more attention to the capacity of emerging IGO systems for collecting, storing, retrieving, and utilizing information and for creating organizational “memories” of their own. Subsequent reading of Deutsch's, KarlThe Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), has contributed to my awareness of this lacunaGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ All “inappropriate” responses were recoded as “noes,” except for III.1, III.7, III.8, III.11, III.12, and IV.8 in which it seemed that “inappropriate” did not logically exclude the presence of that potential capability.

²⁶ If anything, errors in reliability should decrease potential unidimensionality since we have no evidence that the bias is likely to be systematic (regularly optimistic or pessimistic as regards capabilities). If the errors are randomly distributed, this should decrease the two coefficients much as it does for correlation coefficients, a phenomenon generally referred to as “attenuation.”

²⁷ The exceptions are items IV.3 and I.5 for regional organizations and II.4 and III.10 for functional ones which are transoased from the order of difficulty established by the whole sample.

²⁸ Of course, scalogram analysis is by no means the only use to which such dichotomous attribute data can be put. “Broken profiles” could be examined for latent structures; factor analysis could be employed in the search for other interdependent dimensions; contingency tables could be used to test discrete univariate and multivariate propositions. Given the dubious reliability of the data presented here, I have limited my analysis to establishing tentative scalability and suggesting areas for improvement. For an example of massive exploitation of (dubious) attribute data see Banks and Textor.

²⁹ Terrien, Frederic W. and Mills, Donald L., “The Effect of Changing Size upon the Internal Structure of Organization,” American Sociological Review, 02 1955 (Vol. 20, No. 1), pp. 11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Blau, Peter M., Heyderbrand, Wolf V., and Stauffer, Robert E., “The Structure of Small Bureaucracies,” American Sociological Review, 04 1966 (Vol. 31, No. 2), pp. 179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Anderson, Theodore R. and Warkov, Seymour, “Organizational Size and Functional Complexity: A Study of Administration in Hospitals,” American Sociological Review, 02 1961 (Vol. 26, No. 1), pp. 23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Udy, S. H. Jr, “‘Bureaucracy’ and ‘Rationality’ in Weber's Organization Theory: An Empirical Study,” American Sociological Review, 12 1959 (Vol. 24, No. 6), pp. 791–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hall, Richard H., “The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment,” American Journal of Sociology, 12 1962 (Vol. 69, No. 4), pp. 295–308Google Scholar; and Hall, Richard H. and Tittle, Charles R., “A Note on Bureaucracy and Its ‘Correlates,’” American Journal of Sociology, 11 1966 (Vol. 72, No. 3), pp. 267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Hage, Gerald and Aiken, Michael, “Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology, 03 1967 (Vol. 72, No. 5), pp. 503–519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

³⁴ Blau, Peter M., “The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations,” American Journal of Sociology, 01 1968 (Vol. 73, No. 4), pp. 453–467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁵ Parsons, Bales, and Shils, pp. 182ff., as cited in Etzioni, Amitai, “The Epigcnesis of Communities,” Studies in Social Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966), pp. 42–51Google Scholar.

³⁶ Edward Miles is, however, an important exception and he has done some very useful inventorying of structural propositions. See his article in the International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2.

³⁷ E.g., Simpson, Richard L. and Gulley, William H., “Goals, Environmental Pressures, and Organizational Characteristics,” American Sociological Review, 06 1962 (Vol. 27, No. 3), pp. 344–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raphael, Edna E., “Power Structure and Membership Dispersion in Unions,” American Journal of Sociology, 11 1965 (Vol. 71, No. 3), pp. 274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Marcus, Philip M., “Union Conventions and Executive Boards: A Formal Analysis of Organizational Structure,” American Sociological Review, 02 1966 (Vol. 31, No. 1), pp. 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ See Schmitter, Philippe C., “Further Notes on Operationalizing Some Variables Related to Regional Integration,” International Organization, Spring 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 2), p. 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ See Mitchell, John D., “Cross-Cutting Memberships, Integration, and the International System,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 03 1970 (Vol. 14, No. 1), pp. 49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Miles, Edward, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 203–205Google Scholar.

⁴¹ For insightful speculation on the complexity of this problem as it relates to organizational durability, differentiation, and autonomy see Keohane, , International Organization, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 893–895Google Scholar.