April 3,Annotated Bibiography, source #3

First things first. My source is called
Institutional Change and Globalization
By John L. Campbell
Princeton University Press, 2004. 264 pages. $55 (cloth), $17.95 (paper). This looks like an excellent source. But 264 pages! No Way! I would need at least three months to research that. Maybe I can convince professor Crane that this counts as four sources...
As it is, I will use the book report done by
Reviewer: Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos, Birkbeck College, University of London. Strange Name.
1st paragraph: Most institutionalists (I assume this to mean advocates of institutionalism, which is straying a bit from my topic) have focused on the issue of change and have provided only information, but little or no guidance to determine what change has actually occured. He calls out to them and to all "stop the madness, let's do this right." Doing it right means to focus on the basics. I agree 100% The basics are: 1. The dimensions of an institution that are specified by the scholar 2. The salience (A pronounced feature or part; a highlight) of these dimensions for those in the institution. 3. the identification of the appropriate level of analysis (I don't understand that)
2nd paragraph: From there Campbell moves on to the time frame that is being considered (that to me seems secondary) on to the mechanisms that drive institutional change (what is employed to effect the change) and recombination, evaluation, and institution (ha-ha) of existing principles and practices. Then he identifies the mechanisms: paradigms, programs, frames, and public sentiments. These are the catalysts. What's really cool about this is the three proposed themes for future research: 1. the origins of endogenous (Produced or growing from within) change 2. the role of institutional entrepreneurs (I hope to be one) 3. the origin of perceptions regarding crisis and change.
I can tell this is an excellent source because: 1. The author has provided a fair critique of the existing literature; he explores the ideas of other authors, institutionalists, philosophers, etc; given the extent and the intensity of the relevant debates, this was a monumental task. 2. He has articulated and discussed important new features of the study of institutional change; he is an essayer (Paul Nodál would be especially proud) 3. He has made an imaginative and successful effort to point out key elements of “the second movement in institutional analysis.” Thus, he proposed what to do next. I love it.
In final analysis, it wasn't really worth it to come to the library today. Oh well.