The Economics of Hollow Titles
—How Status Becomes Hollow When Rights and Obligations Decouple

In any organization—whether a family, a corporation, or a nation—a universal phenomenon exists: certain members insist they possess "special status," even though they have long since ceased to bear the responsibilities or make the contributions corresponding to that status. This separation of "name" from "substance" is not an accidental personality trait but an inevitable result of the interplay between institutional lag and psychological mechanisms. When the role structures of traditional society collapse while psychological expectations have yet to adjust, a unique game-theoretic structure—and the conflicts that follow—emerges within organizations.

1. Institutional Lag: The Structure Changed, but the Psychology Didn't

Sociologist William F. Ogburn introduced the concept of "cultural lag" in 1922: when material culture (technology, economic structures) changes, non-material culture (values, norms, psychological expectations) often fails to keep pace, creating a "time gap" between the two.^[1] This concept can be directly applied to the analysis of organizational roles.

In traditional society, many roles were a "bundled package": status, rights, responsibilities, resources, and obligations were packaged together as an inseparable whole. For example:

• A tribal chief held decision-making power but was also responsible for defending the tribe, presiding over rituals, and mediating disputes
• A feudal lord enjoyed land revenues but also bore military obligations, protected tenants, and maintained order
• Senior members in traditional organizations enjoyed respect but were also responsible for passing down skills, training newcomers, and solving problems

This institutional design of "rights-obligation bundling" is known in institutional economics as "reciprocal arrangements."^[2] Its stability stems from the mutual checks between rights and obligations: those who enjoy rights must bear obligations, or else they lose legitimacy.

However, a defining feature of modern society is functional differentiation.^[3] The various functions that traditional roles once performed have been unbundled and assigned to different specialized institutions:

• Economic security → Social insurance, pension systems
• Education and training → Schools, professional training institutions
• Dispute resolution → Courts, arbitration bodies
• Emotional support → Psychological counseling, social services

When these functions are externalized, the "obligation side" of traditional roles is hollowed out—yet the "rights side" (respect, priority, decision-making authority) often lingers in psychological expectations.^[4]

1.1 "Institutional Residue": Vanished Obligations, Lingering Rights

This creates a phenomenon that can be called "institutional residue": the substantive function of the institution has vanished, but its symbolic meaning and psychological expectations persist.

Douglas North's institutional economics framework points out that institutions are not merely "rules of the game" but also collections of "mental models"—shared understandings of "how things should work."^[5] The rate at which these mental models change lags far behind the rate at which formal institutions change.

Thus, we observe a paradoxical phenomenon:

• Formal institutions have changed (the obligations of traditional roles are no longer enforced)
• But informal norms persist (the rights of traditional roles are still psychologically expected)
• The result: certain members can "enjoy rights without bearing obligations"

This is not deception or manipulation—the individuals involved may genuinely believe they "rightfully" deserve these rights. It is the result of mental models lagging behind social change.^[6]

2. The Asymmetry of Rights and Obligations: From Bundling to Decoupling

Let us analyze this problem using a more precise economic framework.

2.1 Traditional Institutions: The Implicit Contract

In traditional society, the rights and obligations of specific roles can be understood as an "implicit contract."^[7] This contract can be expressed as:

R (rights) = f(O (obligations))

That is, the rights a role enjoys are a function of the obligations it bears. This binding relationship was enforced by social norms and reputation mechanisms:

• If someone enjoyed rights without fulfilling obligations, they would face social punishment (shame, ostracism)
• If someone fulfilled obligations without receiving rights, they would exit or rebel
• In repeated games, only arrangements with rights-obligation parity could persist stably

This was a self-enforcing equilibrium: no one needed to enforce compliance, because deviations from equilibrium were automatically punished by social mechanisms.^[8]

2.2 The Modern Transition: The Collapse of the Contract

The process of modernization broke this equilibrium. Key changes include:

• Increased anonymity: Traditional society was a community of acquaintances where reputation mechanisms were effective; modern society's increased anonymity weakens social sanctions^[9]
• Increased exit options: In traditional society, the cost of exit was high (social isolation); in modern society, one can simply "switch to a different circle"^[10]
• Increased alternative supply: The "services" provided by traditional roles (protection, support, resources) now have market substitutes^[11]

The result: the enforcement mechanisms of the implicit contract have failed. Those who enjoy rights without fulfilling obligations no longer face effective social sanctions.

But a critical asymmetry exists here: the reduction of obligations is explicit and immediate; the adjustment of rights is implicit and slow.

• When someone no longer bears traditional obligations, it is the result of their "choice"—they are clearly aware of it
• But their expectations of "rights," deeply embedded in mental models formed during socialization, do not automatically adjust just because their behavior has changed

This is why we observe a common pattern: certain individuals genuinely believe they rightfully deserve special status while genuinely believing they have no corresponding obligations—this is not hypocrisy but the lag of mental models.^[12]

3. Path Dependence of Vested Interests: Why Is Status So Hard to Relinquish?

Even if someone cognitively acknowledges that "my status has no substantive basis," they may still cling to that status. This can be explained through path dependence and loss aversion.

3.1 Path Dependence: The Lock-In Effect of History

The path dependence theory of economists Paul David and W. Brian Arthur states that early, small events can "lock" a system onto a particular trajectory, even if that trajectory is not optimal.^[13][14]

In the context of organizational roles, this means:

• An individual acquired a particular status early on (due to traditional norms)
• This status became the foundation of their self-identity, social interactions, and resource acquisition
• Even as the institutional environment has changed, the cost of relinquishing this status remains high
• Consequently, they become "locked in" to this status and resist any pressure to change

3.2 Loss Aversion: Losing Hurts More Than Gaining Feels Good

Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory states that people's sensitivity to "losses" is approximately twice their sensitivity to "gains".^[15]

Applied to the context of status:

• The happiness from gaining a new status = U
• The pain from losing an existing status ≈ 2U

This means that even if someone's status is "undeserved" (based on the principle of rights-obligation parity), they will strongly resist losing it—because the pain of loss far exceeds the "value" of the status itself.

More importantly, Thaler's research on the "endowment effect" shows that people overvalue what they already possess.^[16] When someone has grown accustomed to a certain status, they see it as "natural"—not something they "fought for" but something they "were always supposed to have."

This explains why status holders often do not feel they are "taking advantage"—in their mental model, this status is "theirs," not "borrowed" or "temporary."^[17]

4. Identity Theory: Status as the Core of the Self

Nobel laureate George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton developed "Identity Economics," which provides a deeper explanatory framework.^[18]

4.1 The Identity Utility Function

In Akerlof and Kranton's model, an individual's utility function includes not only material payoffs but also "identity utility":

U = U(x) + I(s, a)

Where:

• U(x) is the utility from material consumption
• I(s, a) is identity utility, which depends on the "category" of self-identification (s) and whether one's behavior conforms to the "ideal type" of that category (a)

When a person positions themselves as "a member of a specific category" (e.g., "a core figure in the organization" or "the pillar of the family"), their self-esteem and psychological well-being become dependent on maintaining this identity.^[19]

4.2 The Cost of Identity Threat

If the external environment challenges this identity, it produces an "identity threat," causing psychological distress.^[20]

Within this framework, "clinging to status" is not merely about material benefits (such as decision-making power or resources) but about maintaining self-consistency. Relinquishing status = admitting "I am not who I thought I was" = identity collapse.

This explains why some individuals cling strongly to status even when they have no material need for it—because the status has become a core part of "who they are." In the terminology of identity economics: their identity utility I primarily derives from this status.^[21]

4.3 The Sunk Cost of Identity Investment

Furthermore, people "invest" in their identities. These investments include:

• Public declarations: telling others "I am XXX"
• Symbolic consumption: purchasing and displaying identity-related items
• Behavioral patterns: adopting behaviors consistent with identity expectations
• Social relationships: allying with those who validate this identity

These investments create "sunk costs." Even when the objective basis for the identity has vanished, abandoning the identity means acknowledging that past investments were "wasted"—something extremely difficult to accept.^[22]

5. The Decoupling of Signal and Substance: When "Name" and "Reality" Diverge

Signaling theory in economics provides another analytical angle.^[23]

5.1 Status as a Signal

In traditional society, "status" was a reliable signal: it conveyed information about an individual's capabilities, resources, and contributions. This signal was reliable because it had a "cost"—maintaining status required continuous fulfillment of obligations.

In Spence's signaling equilibrium framework: high-type individuals can afford the signaling cost while low-type individuals cannot, enabling the signal to effectively distinguish types.^[24]

But when obligations are externalized and signaling costs decline, the signal loses its discriminating power—anyone can "claim" status without needing to "prove" it.

5.2 Signal Inflation

This leads to a phenomenon similar to "credential inflation"—what we might call "status inflation".^[25]

• When anyone can claim status for free, the signaling value of status declines
• But the number of people claiming status does not decrease—because the claim itself is "free"
• The result: status signals proliferate, but no one truly "believes" these signals

This creates an absurd equilibrium: everyone maintains the "facade" of status, but everyone knows these facades may be hollow. This is an "Emperor's New Clothes" type of collective collusion.^[26]

5.3 Why Does Exposing the Signal Trigger Anger?

What happens when someone points out that "the signal does not match the substance"?

From a game-theoretic perspective, this disrupts a fragile equilibrium. Those who maintain hollow status depend on two things:

• Others "playing along" (not questioning the status)
• Themselves "believing the performance" (not admitting the status is hollow)

When someone publicly questions this, both conditions are threatened—it becomes difficult to continue the self-deception and to demand others' cooperation. This explains why pointing out that "name does not match reality" often triggers intense anger: it is not merely "criticism" but a threat to the entire self-narrative.^[27]

6. The Free-Rider Problem: Enjoying Status Without Bearing the Costs

From the perspective of public goods and collective action, the obligations of traditional roles often have the nature of "public goods"—they benefit the entire organization, not just the person fulfilling them.^[28]

6.1 Obligations as Public Goods

For example:

• Senior members' "mentoring" in organizations → benefits all new members
• Core figures' "coordination" → reduces transaction costs for the entire organization
• Key roles' "assumption of responsibility" → provides security for others

Under traditional institutions, the provision of these public goods was bundled with "private benefits" (the respect and rights conferred by status). This was a clever institutional design—using private incentives to motivate the provision of public goods.^[29]

6.2 The Temptation to Free Ride

But when rights and obligations decouple, the classic free-rider problem emerges:

• Individual optimal strategy: enjoy status (private benefits) without fulfilling obligations (public goods costs)
• Collective outcome: no one provides public goods, but everyone claims status
• System breakdown: status becomes meaningless because no one actually performs its function

Olson's logic of collective action states that when the provision of public goods is voluntary and free riding cannot be punished, public goods will be severely undersupplied.^[30]

Applied to organizational roles: when the obligations of traditional roles become "optional" while rights remain "default," we observe a universal degradation of obligations and a universal inflation of rights.

6.3 The "Contribution Illusion"

Even more subtly, free riders often do not believe they are free riding. Psychological research shows that people tend to overestimate their own contributions and underestimate others'.^[31]

A classic study by Ross and Sicoly found that when team members were asked to estimate their percentage of contribution to team outcomes, the sum of all members' estimates often far exceeded 100%.^[32] This means everyone believes they "contributed a lot"—even when objectively they did not.

This "contribution illusion" makes free riding even more covert: the individuals genuinely believe they "deserve" the status because they overestimate their contributions and underestimate the benefits they enjoy.

7. Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Defense: Why Does Pointing Out Inconsistency Trigger Anger?

When an external observer points out the "disparity between rights and obligations," why does the individual often respond not with reflection but with anger?

7.1 Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory provides the basic framework: when people's beliefs are inconsistent with their behavior, they experience psychological discomfort and tend to change their beliefs (rather than their behavior) to eliminate the discomfort.^[33]

In the context of status:

• Belief: "I rightfully deserve this status"
• Behavior: not fulfilling the corresponding obligations
• Cognitive dissonance: "If I rightfully deserve this status, why am I not fulfilling the obligations?"
• Dissonance resolution: "I actually am fulfilling the obligations" or "These obligations were never necessary in the first place"

When an external observer points out the inconsistency, they shatter the "internal consistency" the individual had already achieved—triggering a strong defensive reaction.^[34]

7.2 Self-Esteem Threat

At a deeper level, "pointing out inconsistency" is perceived as a "self-esteem threat."^[35]

Research by Baumeister and colleagues shows that when people's self-perception is challenged, the most common response is to attack the challenger rather than reflect on themselves.^[36] This "defensive aggression" is part of the self-esteem protection mechanism.

Therefore, when someone points out "your status has no substantive basis," the individual's response is often not:

"Let me think about whether you have a point."

But rather:

"Who are you to say that? You're the one with the problem!"

This is not a logical rebuttal but an emotional defense.

7.3 "Shooting the Messenger"

In organizational behavior, this phenomenon is known as "shooting the messenger."^[37]

Research shows that the bearer of bad news is attributed by the recipient as the "cause" of the bad news. This is a cognitive bias—equating "the person who reports the problem" with "the person who created the problem."^[38]

In the context of status, the person who points out "your status has no basis" is perceived by the individual as "the person who is destroying my status"—rather than "the person revealing the facts." This explains why honest observers are often less welcome than dishonest flatterers.

8. Game-Theoretic Structure: An Unstable Equilibrium

From a game-theoretic perspective, "hollow status" creates an unstable equilibrium.

8.1 Multiple Equilibria

Consider a simple two-player game:

• Player A: the status holder, who can choose to "fulfill obligations" or "not fulfill obligations"
• Player B: other members of the organization, who can choose to "respect the status" or "challenge the status"

This game has multiple equilibria:^[39]

• Traditional equilibrium: A fulfills obligations, B respects status (both parties satisfied)
• Hollow equilibrium: A does not fulfill obligations, B still respects status (A benefits, B is exploited)
• Collapse equilibrium: A does not fulfill obligations, B challenges status (both parties in conflict)

The "hollow equilibrium" can be maintained because the cost for B to challenge the status is high (conflict, relationship breakdown), while the cost of maintaining the status quo is diffused (gradually accumulated resentment).^[40]

8.2 Tipping Points and Sudden Collapse

But the "hollow equilibrium" is fragile. Schelling's tipping point theory states that when enough people begin to challenge existing norms, a "chain reaction" occurs.^[41]

In the context of status:

• As long as most people "play along," hollow status can be maintained
• But once a few people begin to openly question it, others reassess
• If questioning reaches a certain tipping point, a "status collapse" occurs—suddenly, everyone starts questioning

This explains why the loss of status is often not gradual but sudden: it is not "slowly losing respect" but "one day being suddenly questioned, then completely collapsing."^[42]

8.3 Preemptive Defense

A rational holder of hollow status will foresee this possibility of collapse. Therefore, their optimal strategy is to preemptively suppress any questioning:

• Labeling questioners as "disloyal," "disrespectful," or "troublemakers"
• Reinforcing compliance norms within the organization
• Establishing "unquestionable" taboo topics
• Punishing anyone who openly questions

This is not necessarily a conscious strategy—it may be the automatic operation of defense mechanisms. But the effect is the same: creating an environment where "the cost of questioning is extremely high," allowing hollow status to persist.^[43]

9. Implications for Institutional Design: How to Address "Hollow Status"

From the analysis above, several principles of institutional design can be distilled:

9.1 Re-Bundling Rights and Obligations

The most fundamental solution is to restore the binding relationship between rights and obligations.^[44] This requires:

• Clearly defining the "attached obligations" of each status
• Establishing monitoring mechanisms for obligation fulfillment
• Linking the enjoyment of rights to the fulfillment of obligations

At the organizational level, this may mean re-pairing "titles" with "actual responsibilities"—if someone holds only a title without responsibilities, the title should be adjusted.

9.2 Lowering the Cost of Questioning

Hollow status persists partly because the cost of questioning is too high.^[45] Institutional design can:

• Establish anonymous feedback mechanisms
• Protect "truth-tellers" from retaliation
• Conduct regular "role reviews," making questioning routine rather than exceptional

9.3 Providing a "Graceful Exit"

If the only choices facing a holder of hollow status are "maintain the status" or "total failure," they will resist strongly.^[46] A better design provides a "graceful exit":

• Allowing "role transitions" rather than "status revocation"
• Acknowledging past contributions while adjusting future roles
• Providing new sources of identity, reducing dependence on the old status

9.4 Separating "Respect" from "Power"

In traditional society, "respect" and "power" were bundled together. But in modern organizations, we can consider separating the two:^[47]

• "Respect" can be based on seniority, experience, and historical contributions
• "Power" (decision-making authority, resource allocation) should be based on current capability and responsibility

This way, senior members can receive "respect" (satisfying identity needs) without holding "power" (avoiding the responsibility-power imbalance).

10. Conclusion: The Hollowing of Status Is Institutional Failure, Not Personal Flaw

Returning to the original question: why do certain individuals cling to status that has lost its substantive basis?

As the analysis in this article shows, this is not simply "selfishness" or "vanity" but the interaction of multiple structural factors:

• Institutional lag: Social structures changed, but psychological expectations didn't keep up
• Rights-obligation decoupling: The binding mechanism of traditional institutions has failed
• Path dependence: Existing status creates a "lock-in effect"
• Identity economics: Status becomes the core of self-identity
• Signal decoupling: Status signals lose their substantive foundation
• Free riding: Enjoying rights while evading obligations becomes possible
• Cognitive dissonance: Questioning triggers defense mechanisms

Understanding these mechanisms is not about "forgiving" holders of hollow status but about recognizing that the root of the problem lies in institutions, not in individuals.^[48]

For those puzzled by "why does he think he's so important," this analysis provides a framework: his behavior is a product of institutional incentives. Changing individuals is difficult, but changing institutional design—or at least understanding the structural roots of this behavior—may help reduce frustration.

For holders of hollow status (if they are willing to reflect), this analysis may serve as a mirror: does the status you cling to still have a substantive foundation? If not, what is the cost of continuing to cling—to yourself, to the organization, to your relationships?

Finally, for organizational designers, this analysis is a warning: any status system that fails to maintain the parity of rights and obligations will gradually hollow out until it loses meaning or collapses. Wise institutional design anticipates this degradation and builds safeguards from the very beginning.

"Status is not what you claim but what you prove. When claims and proof diverge, status becomes an empty shell—the longer it is maintained, the more painful the collapse."

References

1. Ogburn, W. F. (1922). Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature. B.W. Huebsch.
2. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. DOI
3. Luhmann, N. (1982). The Differentiation of Society. European Journal of Sociology, 23(2), 215-268. DOI
4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. DOI
5. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton University Press.
6. Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3-31. DOI
7. Azariadis, C. (1975). Implicit Contracts and Underemployment Equilibria. Journal of Political Economy, 83(6), 1183-1202. DOI
8. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge University Press.
9. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press.
10. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.
11. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press.
12. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday.
13. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337. JSTOR
14. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131. DOI
15. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. DOI
16. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. DOI
17. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. DOI
18. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715-753. DOI
19. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2010). Identity Economics: How Our Identities Shape Our Work, Wages, and Well-Being. Princeton University Press.
20. Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under Threat: Responses to and the Consequences of Threats to Individuals' Identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641-662. DOI
21. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity Theory. Oxford University Press.
22. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The Psychology of Sunk Cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140. DOI
23. Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. DOI
24. Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434-459. DOI
25. Collins, R. (1979). The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. Academic Press.
26. Kuran, T. (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Harvard University Press.
27. Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. W. H. Freeman.
28. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
29. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.
30. Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action. Johns Hopkins University Press.
31. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon Be Gone! The "Below-Average Effect" and the Egocentric Nature of Comparative Ability Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 221-232. DOI
32. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322-336. DOI
33. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
34. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Harcourt.
35. Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414. DOI
36. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33. DOI
37. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don't Communicate Upward and Why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476. DOI
38. Manis, M., Cornell, S. D., & Moore, J. C. (1974). Transmission of Attitude-Relevant Information Through a Communication Chain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(1), 81-94. DOI
39. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game Theory. MIT Press.
40. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
41. Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. W. W. Norton.
42. Kuran, T. (1991). Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44(1), 7-48. DOI
43. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press.
44. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press.
45. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. DOI
46. Weick, K. E. (1984). Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49. DOI
47. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Pitman Publishing.
48. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. Free Press.