SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yildiz Social Science Review / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

Institutional Syncretism in the Digital Age: The Adaptive Institutional Fusion (AIF) Framework

Syed Mohsin(North South University)0009-0008-5308-3678
Pages
55–72
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The AIF framework offers a basis for rethinking institutional reform strategies and future research on algorithmic governance and cross-national validation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper introduces the Adaptive Institutional Fusion (AIF) framework, a mid-range sociological theory explaining how formal and informal institutions interact under conditions of digital exposure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:AIF conceptualizes "fusion nodes" where formal regulations and informal practices converge, shaped by adaptive legitimacy, elasticity versus rigidity, and feedback loops generated by online exposure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The AIF framework offers a basis for rethinking institutional reform strategies and future research on algorithmic governance and cross-national validation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hybrid Institutions · Digital Exposure · Formal and Informal Institutions

Abstract

This paper introduces the Adaptive Institutional Fusion (AIF) framework, a mid-range sociological theory explaining how formal and informal institutions interact under conditions of digital exposure. Research question: How do offline–online hybrid institutional arrangements form, adapt, and influence governance, education, labor, and social norms in transitional societies? Theoretical gap: The existing literature treats informal practices primarily as governance deficits, while digital sociology examines platform governance in isolation. Neither approach explains how hybrid systems evolve when locally embedded authority intersects with global digital visibility. AIF conceptualizes "fusion nodes" where formal regulations and informal practices converge, shaped by adaptive legitimacy, elasticity versus rigidity, and feedback loops generated by online exposure. Propositions: (1) Greater online visibility heightens legitimacy contests around hybrid institutions; (2) elastic hybrids with open digital interfaces formalize faster than rigid, patronage-bound systems; (3) digital exposure reinforces positive feedback in responsive institutions but amplifies dysfunction under elite capture; (4) hybrid nodes are durable, not transitional anomalies, and can be deliberately shaped by policy. Drawing on Bangladesh cases—madrasa digital curricula, shalish arbitration on Facebook, online labor markets, and activism campaigns—and global parallels such as M-Pesa, Brazilian favela leadership, and the gig economy, the paper argues that hybrid systems can deliver public value if recognized and governed rather than eradicated. The AIF framework offers a basis for rethinking institutional reform strategies and future research on algorithmic governance and cross-national validation.

Özet

This paper introduces the Adaptive Institutional Fusion (AIF) framework, a mid-range sociological theory explaining how formal and informal institutions interact under conditions of digital exposure. Research question: How do offline–online hybrid institutional arrangements form, adapt, and influence governance, education, labor, and social norms in transitional societies? Theoretical gap: The existing literature treats informal practices primarily as governance deficits, while digital sociology examines platform governance in isolation. Neither approach explains how hybrid systems evolve when locally embedded authority intersects with global digital visibility. AIF conceptualizes "fusion nodes" where formal regulations and informal practices converge, shaped by adaptive legitimacy, elasticity versus rigidity, and feedback loops generated by online exposure. Propositions: (1) Greater online visibility heightens legitimacy contests around hybrid institutions; (2) elastic hybrids with open digital interfaces formalize faster than rigid, patronage-bound systems; (3) digital exposure reinforces positive feedback in responsive institutions but amplifies dysfunction under elite capture; (4) hybrid nodes are durable, not transitional anomalies, and can be deliberately shaped by policy. Drawing on Bangladesh cases—madrasa digital curricula, shalish arbitration on Facebook, online labor markets, and activism campaigns—and global parallels such as M-Pesa, Brazilian favela leadership, and the gig economy, the paper argues that hybrid systems can deliver public value if recognized and governed rather than eradicated. The AIF framework offers a basis for rethinking institutional reform strategies and future research on algorithmic governance and cross-national validation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mohsin, S. (2026). Institutional Syncretism in the Digital Age: The Adaptive Institutional Fusion (AIF) Framework. Yildiz Social Science Review, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 55–72. https://doi.org/10.51803/yssr.1884173

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. 10 Minute School. (2019). Home – 10 Minute School. 10 Minute School. https://10minuteschool.com/ Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  2. Abbott, K. W., & Faude, B. (2021). Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance. The Review of International Organizations. 17, 263–291. [CrossRef]
  3. ActionAid Bangladesh. (2024). ActionAid Bangladesh. Actionaidbd.org. https://actionaidbd.org/post/default/actionaid-bangladesh-launches-16-days-activism-campaign-against- gender-based-violence-focus-digital-security Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  4. Ahmed, M. (2025a). Social Media as Tools of Mob Violence and Mob Trials: A Study on South Asia with Special Focus on Bangladesh. Preprints 2025, 2025042021. doi: 10.20944/preprints202504.2021.v1 [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, M. (2025b). Social Media Platform Facebook Has Become a Tool for Media Trials: A Study on Recent Mob Violence Against Citizens of Bangladesh. Preprints 2025, 2025062211. doi: 10.20944/preprints202506.2211.v1 [CrossRef]
  6. Alim, M. A., & Ali, T. O. (2023, December 4). NGO-Shalish and Justice-Seeking Behaviour in Rural Bangladesh - BRAC Institute of Governance and Development. BRAC Institute of Governance and Development. https://bigd.bracu.ac.bd/publications/ngo-shalish-and-justice-seeking-behaviour-in-rural-bangladesh/?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  7. Asadullah, M. N., & Chaudhury, N. (2009). Holy alliances: public subsidies, Islamic high schools, and female schooling in Bangladesh. Education Economics, 17(3), 377–394. [CrossRef]
  8. Baharun, H., & Mukarramah, A. (2023). Digital based Madrasas: The Strategy to Improve the Quality of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Performance. Al Ibtida: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru MI, 10, 119. [CrossRef]
  9. Batlle, M. (2008). Informal Institutions and Democracy. Lessons from Latin America, de Gretchen Helmke y Steven Levitsky. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 16, 179–184. [CrossRef]
  10. Bayart, J.-F. (1993) The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. Longman Group, England.
  11. Boege, V. Brown, A., Clements, K., & Nolan, A. (2008). On hybrid political orders and emerging states: state formation in the context of ‘fragility’. Berghof Handbook.
  12. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society and culture (v. 1). Wiley.
  13. Chatterjee, P. (2004). The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Political Society in Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press.
  14. Cuvi, J. (2012). Favela: Four Decades of Living on the Edge in Rio de Janeiro - By Janice Perlman. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 403–404. [CrossRef]
  15. Dallakoti, G. (2024, June 27). Formalization key to shared prosperity with workers in bangladesh’s informal sector. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/resource/article/formalization-key-shared-prosperity- workers-bangladeshs-informal-sector Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  16. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. [CrossRef]
  17. Dijck, J. van, Es, K. van, Helmond, A., & Vlist, F. van der (Eds.). (2025). Governing the Digital Society. Routledge. [CrossRef]
  18. Dijck, V., Winkel, D., & Tobias, S. M. (2023). Deplatformization and the governance of the platform ecosystem. New Media & Society, 25, 3438–3454. [CrossRef] Dijck, van, Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford
  19. University Press. DiMaggio, R, & Powell. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147160. [CrossRef]
  20. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
  21. Fritzen, S. A. (2016). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Governance, 30(1), 158–159. [CrossRef]
  22. Fung, A. (2013). Infotopia: Unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Politics & Society, 41(2), 183–212. [CrossRef]
  23. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
  24. Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. OAPEN Press. [CrossRef]
  25. German, L., & Keeler, A. (2010). “Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 571596. [CrossRef]
  26. Gimenez-Jimenez, D., Calabrò, A., & Urbano, D. (2020). The neglected role of formal and informal institutions in women’s entrepreneurship: a multi-level analysis. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 18, 196226. [CrossRef]
  27. Gümüsay, A. A., Raynard, M., Albu, O., Etter, M., & Roulet, T. (2022). Digital technology and voice: How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization. Digital Transformation and Institutional Theory, 83, 57–85. [CrossRef]
  28. Gwynne, R. N. (2009, January 1). Modernization Theory. In A. Kobayashi, (Ed.), Elsevier.
  29. Hart, K. (1973). Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11(1), 61–89. [CrossRef]
  30. Hasan, N. B. (2025). The Growth of Online Freelancing in Bangladesh: Economic Integration and Labor Vulnerability. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, IX(IV), 3112–3118. [CrossRef]
  31. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A Research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(04), 725740. [CrossRef]
  32. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal institutions and democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  33. Horak, S & Yang, I. (2016). Affective networks, informal ties, and the limits of expatriate effectiveness. International Business Review, 25(5), 10301042. [CrossRef]
  34. Horak, S., & Suseno, Y. (2022). Informal Networks, Informal Institutions, and Social Exclusion in the Workplace: Insights from Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations in Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 186(3), 633655. [CrossRef]
  35. HRM Asia Newsroom. (2018, September 30). New app helps Bangladesh jobseekers navigate the informal economy - HRM Asia. HRM Asia. https://hrmasia.com/new-app-helps-bangladesh-jobseekers-navigate-the-informal-economy/?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  36. Islam, M. T. (2019). Rural dispute resolution in Bangladesh: how do village courts safeguard justice? Contemporary South Asia, 27(1), 58–65. [CrossRef]
  37. Islam, S., & Sakib, A B M. (2024). Learning through Facebook and YouTube: Perceptions of Students of University of Dhaka. Teacher’s World: Journal of Education and Research, 50, 95–118. [CrossRef]
  38. Islam, T. (2018, February 19). In quest of justice: dispute resolution in rural Bangladesh - South Asia @ LSE. South Asia @ LSE; London School oF Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2018/02/19/dispute-resolution-in-rural-bangladesh-in-quest-of-justice/?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  39. Jack, W., & Suri, T. (2011). Mobile Money: The Economics of M-PESA. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper no. 1672). NBER Working Paper Series. [CrossRef]
  40. Jhaver, S., Frey, S., & Zhang, A. (2021). Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-level Governance in Online Social Platforms. ArXiv (Cornell University), Preprint. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2108.12529
  41. Ledeneva, A. V. (2006). How Russia really works: the informal practices that shaped post-Soviet politics and business. Cornell University Press.
  42. Lund, C. (2006). Twilight institutions: An introduction. Development and Change, 37(4), 673–684. [CrossRef]
  43. Lungu, M. (2022). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6, 232–237. [CrossRef] Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). Explaining Institutional Change. Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef]
  44. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical DecisionMaking and Internet Research Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/55543125/UN%20 Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  45. Marwick, A. (2013). Ethnographic and qualitative research on twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, C. Puschmann, J. Burgess, & M. Mahrt, M. (Eds), Twitter and society (pp. 109122). Peter Lang Press.
  46. Mattsson, M., & Mobarak, A. M. (2023). Formalizing Dispute Resolution: Effects of Village Courts in Bangladesh. EliScholar – a Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/egcenter- discussion-paper-series/1100/?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026. [CrossRef]
  47. Meagher, K. (2012). The strength of weak states? Non-state security forces and hybrid governance in Africa. Development and Change, 43(5), 1073–1101. [CrossRef]
  48. Medrado, A., Cabral, T., & Souza, R. (2020). Favela digital activism: The use of social media to fight oppression and injustice in Brazil. In C. Martens, C. Venegas, E. F. Salvio Sharupi Tapuy, (Eds.), Digital activism, community media, and sustainable communication in Latin America (pp. 177–201). Springer Nature. [CrossRef]
  49. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged ed.). The Free Press.
  50. Minbaeva, D., Ledeneva, A., MuratbekovaTouron, M., & Horak, S. (2023). Explaining the persistence of informal institutions: The role of informal networks. Academy of Management Review, 48, 556–574. [CrossRef]
  51. Nason, R. S., & Bothello, J. (2022). Far from Void: How Institutions Shape Growth in the Informal Economy. Academy of Management Review, 48(3). [CrossRef]
  52. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance (pp. 83-104; pp. 107-117). Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef]
  53. Patton, M. (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.), Sage Publications.
  54. Rahman, M., Bhattacharya, D., & Al-Hasan, M. (2019). Dimensions of informality in bangladesh labour market and the consequent wage penalty. South Asia Economic Journal, 20(2), 224–247. [CrossRef]
  55. Riaz, A. (2008). Faithful education: Madrassahs in South Asia. Rutgers University Press.
  56. Rohit, M. (2025, August 2). Fact Check: Do Madrasa Students in Bangladesh Have Access to Modern Subjects? Diplotic. https://www.diplotic.com/madrasa-students-in-bangladesh/#google_vignette Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  57. Roy A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 147158. [CrossRef]
  58. Roy, D. R. K. (2023). Digitalisation, online activism and civic politics in contemporary Bangladesh. LSE South Asia Center. https://www.lse.ac.uk/south-asia-centre/assets/documents/WorkingPapers/Bangladesh-ROY-Online- Activism.pdf Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  59. Roy, S., Huq, S., & Rob, A. B. A. (2020). Faith and education in Bangladesh: A review of the contemporary landscape and challenges. International Journal of Educational Development, 79, 102290. [CrossRef] Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
  60. Shams, S. A. (2021, August 23). The Daily Star. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/youth/education/news/madrasa-english-medium-gurukul-online-learning-network-reaching-23-lakh-students-2158616?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  61. Shumshunnahar, S., Ruma, A. R., & Amin, R. (2025). The Constraints and Prospects of Integrating ICT in Bangladesh’s Madrasa Education: Data and Explanations from Dhakil-level. Pancasila International Journal of Applied Social Science, 3(01), 1–18. [CrossRef]
  62. Siddiqi, B. (2019). Activating Village Court in Bangladesh: A Prospect for Local Dispute Management. Ministry of Local government, Donor, UN Agencies Project.
  63. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
  64. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. [CrossRef]
  65. Suri, B. (2025, February 15). Digital Sociology: Origins, Evolution, and Global Implications in a Tech-Driven World. GLOBAL RESEARCH AND. https://www.grefiglobal.org/post/digital-sociology-origins-evolution-and-global- implications-in-a-tech-driven-world?utm
  66. Sutradhar, R. (2023). Universepg An Independent International Academic Publisher. Universepg.com. https://www.universepg.com/ajssls/present-conditions-and-ensuring-rule-of-laws-at-local-level-a-case- study-on-village-court?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026. Swedberg, R. (2014). The art of social theory. Princeton University Press. [CrossRef]
  67. Tasin, A., Chowdhury, A., & Rahman, A. (2025). Monsoon Uprising in Bangladesh: How Facebook Shaped Collective Identity. ArXiv, Preprint. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02498
  68. TBS. (2025, August 29). A force in denial: The unfinished story of police reform. The Business Standard. https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/force-denial-unfinished-story-police-reform-1223606?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  69. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. [CrossRef] Van Dijck, J. (2024). Governing platforms and societies. Platforms & Society, 1, 12. [CrossRef]
  70. Van Dijck, J., de Winkel, T., & Schäfer, M. T. (2021). Deplatformization and the governance of the platform ecosystem. New Media & Society, 25(12), 146144482110456. [CrossRef]
  71. Van Dijck, J., van Es, K., Helmond, A., & van der Vlist, F. (2025). Governing the digital society. Amsterdam University Press. [CrossRef]
  72. Wenner, M. (2020). Trajectories of hybrid governance: Legitimacy, order and leadership in India. Development and Change, 52(2), 265–288. [CrossRef]
  73. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. World Bank. (2016, August 30). Madrasas increase school enrollment but face quality challenges. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2010/08/10/madrasas-increase-school-enrollment-but- face-quality-challenges?utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026. [CrossRef]
  74. Yeasin, H. M. (2022). Informal Sector and Economic Growth in Bangladesh. Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied and Basic Subjects, 12(1), 4861.
  75. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
  76. Zaywa. (2021, July 14). Madrasa views increases by 220% during the pandemic. Zawya.com; Zawya. https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/madrasa-views-increases-by-220-during-the-pandemic-s1m0vrsh? utm Accessed on Jun 29, 2026.
  77. Suri, B. (2025, February 15). Digital Sociology: Origins, Evolution, and Global Implications in a Tech-Driven World. GLOBAL RESEARCH AND. https://www.grefiglobal.org/post/digital-sociology-origins-evolution-and-global- implications-in-a-tech-driven-world?utm