Abstract
Society has built institutions to face various problems in each area of our lives. Yet, institutions face considerable problems in fulfilling their objectives in a continuously changing world. With this in mind, the present study starts from the institutional resistance to change and searches for ways to improve efficiency and increase the positive impact on social welfare. For this, we start by looking at the competition authorities as new institutions and we study how they work and the role of communication, learning, and transparency in increasing institutional efficiency and receiving social legitimacy. The paper begins with a mixed theoretical approach to institutional change and focuses on the role of legitimacy in stimulating institutional change, and the type of institutional change for increasing efficiency. The research ends with the Romanian case study which shows the necessary aspects for making the institutional change real.
References
Abere, S., and T. O. Akinbobola. 2020. “External Shocks, Institutional Quality, and Macroeconomic Performance in Nigeria.” Sage Open 10 (2): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919518.Search in Google Scholar
Andewerg, R. 1989. “Institutional Conservatism in the Netherlands: Proposals for and Resistance to Change.” West European Politics 12 (1): 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402388908424722.Search in Google Scholar
Bell, S. 2005. “Institutionalism: Old and New.” Political Science, Economics 1 (1): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843768661.00081.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Dacin, T., J. Goodstein, and R. Scott. 2002. “Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum.” Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 45–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2002.6283388.Search in Google Scholar
Deephouse, D., and M. Suchman. 2008. “Organizational Institutionalism.” In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, and K. Sahlin, 49–77. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9781849200387.n2Search in Google Scholar
DiClemente, D., and D. Hantula. 2003. “Applied Behavioral Economics and Consumer Choice.” Journal of Economic Psychology 24: 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4870(03)00003-5.Search in Google Scholar
Doan, T., and P. Stevens. 2012. “Evolution of Competition in Vietnam Industries over the Recent Economic Transition.” Economics 6 (1): 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-19.Search in Google Scholar
ESMA. 2023. “Transparency Directive.” In European Securities and Markets Authority. Esma.europa.eu/regulation/corporate-disclosure/transparency-directive (accessed January 02, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2012. Competition. European Commission. ec.europa.eu/competition/con sumers/what_en.html (accessed May 20, 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Gavrilov, D. 2021. “Institutionalism- a Different Perception of Human Behavior and Social Organization.” Academia Letters. Article 1632, https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1632.Search in Google Scholar
Gavrilov, D. 2022. The New Social Reality of the Europeans: A Constructivist Approach to Europeanization. Bucharest: Independently published.Search in Google Scholar
Gaynor, M. 2006. “Competition and Quality in Helath Care Markets.” Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics 2 (6): 441–508. https://doi.org/10.1561/0700000024.Search in Google Scholar
Keohane, R., and L. Martin. 1995. “The Promise of Institutional Theory.” International Security 20 (1): 39–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539214.Search in Google Scholar
Keohane, R. 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays In International Theory. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lustick, I. 2011. “Institutional Rigidity and Evolutionary Theory: Trapped on a Local Maximum.” Cyodynamics 2 (2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.21237/c7clio2211722.Search in Google Scholar
Maag, J. 2009. “Resistance to Change: Overcoming Institutional and Individual Limitations for Improving Student Behavior through PLCs.” Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Proffessionals 1 (1): 41–57.Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, J., and B. Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Institutions: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” Americal Journal of Sociology 83: 340–63. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550.Search in Google Scholar
Neven, D. 2006. “Competition Economies and Antitrust in Europe.” Economic Policy 21 (48): 1–36.10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00170.xSearch in Google Scholar
Niels, G., H. Jenkins, and J. Kavanagh. 2011. Economics For Competition Lawyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, J. 2009. “Change and Continuity: An Institutional Approach to Institutions of Democratic Government.” European Political Science Review 1 (1): 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773909000022.Search in Google Scholar
Oprescu, G., A. Gavrila, S. Neagoe, M. Giugariu, B. Sarbu, and N. Nemenyi. 2007. “Studii si Cercetari Privind Protectia Concurentei Economice.” Buletinul Directiei de Monitorizare teritoriala Consiliul Concurentei-Romania 1 (2): 1–186.Search in Google Scholar
Oreg, S. 2003. “Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (4): 680–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680.Search in Google Scholar
Romanian Competition Council. 2023. Annual Reports. Romanian Competition Council. consiliulconcurentei.ro/en/official-documents/reports/annual-reports/ (accessed January 10, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Schinkel, M. 2007. “Forensic Economics in Competition law Enforcement.” Forensic Economics eJournal, https://doi.org/10.1093/JOCLEC%2FNHM033.Search in Google Scholar
Tolbert, P., and L. Zucker. 1983. “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 22–39, https://doi.org/10.2307/2392383.Search in Google Scholar
Zattoni, A., and F. Cuomo. 2008. “Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 16 (1): 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00661.x.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Tweedie Regression Analysis of Determinants of Birth Weight in Navrongo
- The Chinese Debt Trap Diplomacy Narrative: An Empirical Analysis
- A Social Constructionist Approach to Institutional Change: The Case of the Romanian Competition Council
- Conscription Reloaded? The Debate About Compulsory Service in Germany in 2022 and the Peoples’ Attitudes Towards It
- Always a Bridesmaid: A Machine Learning Approach to Minor Party Identity in Multi-Party Systems
- Commentary and Responses
- The Nexus between Federal Revenue and Spending in Canada: A Time-Frequency Perspective
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Tweedie Regression Analysis of Determinants of Birth Weight in Navrongo
- The Chinese Debt Trap Diplomacy Narrative: An Empirical Analysis
- A Social Constructionist Approach to Institutional Change: The Case of the Romanian Competition Council
- Conscription Reloaded? The Debate About Compulsory Service in Germany in 2022 and the Peoples’ Attitudes Towards It
- Always a Bridesmaid: A Machine Learning Approach to Minor Party Identity in Multi-Party Systems
- Commentary and Responses
- The Nexus between Federal Revenue and Spending in Canada: A Time-Frequency Perspective