CONTINUITY CAPITAL: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF INSTITUTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66104/sq9pa258Palabras clave:
Continuity Capital, Institutional Intelligence, State Capacity, Organizational Learning, Intergenerational TransmissionResumen
Public organizations invest decades accumulating institutional intelligence, yet political transitions, administrative reforms, leadership turnover, and generational replacement frequently erode that accumulated asset. Existing frameworks—including institutional memory, organizational learning, dynamic capabilities, intellectual capital, and state capacity—illuminate important aspects of this challenge but do not systematically explain how institutional intelligence is preserved, transmitted, adapted, and mobilized across successive managerial generations. This article introduces Continuity Capital, defined as the accumulated institutional asset produced by the organizational capacities of preservation, transmission, reconfiguration, and mobilization of institutional intelligence over time. The construct addresses a neglected intertemporal dimension of public administration: the capacity of organizations to transmit institutional intelligence across generations without transmitting its obsolescences. Drawing on conceptual paper methodology and integrating insights from organizational learning, dynamic capabilities, and historical institutionalism, the article develops a theoretical framework comprising four constitutive dimensions, five structural antecedents, three contextual moderators, four institutional consequences, and seven falsifiable propositions. The framework also advances the State Capacity Paradox, which highlights that organizations may display high levels of state capacity at a given moment while lacking the mechanisms required to sustain that capacity over time. In addition, the article introduces the concept of Negative Continuity Capital, demonstrating how transmission processes may reproduce institutional rigidities, obsolete routines, and dysfunctional legacies when reconfiguration mechanisms are weak. By distinguishing Continuity Capital from adjacent constructs and proposing a multimethod research agenda, the article contributes a new analytical lens for understanding institutional continuity, organizational sustainability, and the long-term production of public value in contexts marked by political and administrative disruption.
Descargas
Referencias
AHUJA, G.; LAMPERT, C. M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a study of strategic and organizational aspects. Strategic Management Journal, v. 22, n. 6-7, p. 521-543, 2001. DOI: 10.1002/smj.191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176
ANDREWS, M.; PRITCHETT, L.; WOOLCOCK, M. Building state capability: evidence, analysis, action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.001.0001
ARGOTE, L.; HORA, M. Organizational forgetting. In: ARGOTE, L.; LEVINE, J. M. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 537-554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263362.001.0001
ARGYRIS, C.; SCHÖN, D. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
BAKKER, R. M. et al. Organizational resilience in public administration. Public Administration Review, v. 83, n. 4, p. 751-765, 2023.
BEACH, D.; PEDERSEN, R. B. Process-tracing methods: foundations and guidelines. 2. ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.10072208
BOIN, A. et al. Resilience in institutional design: accountability and the bounds of efficiency. Governance, v. 23, n. 4, p. 591-612, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01503.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01487.x
BOIN, A.; LODGE, M. Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: a community of practice approach. Public Administration, v. 99, n. 2, p. 462-476, 2021. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12686
CHURCHILL, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, v. 16, n. 1, p. 64-73, 1979. DOI: 10.1177/002224377901600110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
CONNELLY, C. E. et al. Organizational forgetting: a research agenda and process model. Journal of Management, v. 47, n. 3, p. 671-694, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0149206320960533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533
CORLEY, K. G.; GIOIA, D. A. Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, v. 36, n. 1, p. 12-32, 2011. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.0486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486
DACIN, M. T.; DACIN, P. A. Traditions as institutionalized practice: implications for deinstitutionalization. In: GREENWOOD, R. et al. (ed.). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage, 2008. p. 327-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n13
EDVINSSON, L.; MALONE, M. S. Intellectual capital: realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York: Harper Business, 1997.
EISENHARDT, K. M.; GRAEBNER, M. E. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, v. 50, n. 1, p. 25-32, 2007. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
EISENHARDT, K. M.; MARTIN, J. A. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, v. 21, n. 10-11, p. 1105-1121, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
EVANS, P. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821723
FUKUYAMA, F. State-building: governance and world order in the 21st century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.
HANNAN, M. T.; FREEMAN, J. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, v. 49, n. 2, p. 149-164, 1984. DOI: 10.2307/2095567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567
JAAKKOLA, E. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, v. 10, n. 1-2, p. 18-26, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
KLITMØLLER, A.; RERUP, C. Generative organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, v. 48, n. 1, p. 147-170, 2023. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2018.0349.
LEVINTHAL, D. A.; MARCH, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, v. 14, supl. 2, p. 95-112, 1993. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250141009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
LOK, J.; DE ROND, M. On the plasticity of institutions: containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Management Journal, v. 56, n. 1, p. 185-207, 2013. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2010.0688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0688
MACKENZIE, S. B.; PODSAKOFF, P. M.; PODSAKOFF, N. P. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, v. 35, n. 2, p. 293-334, 2011. DOI: 10.2307/23044045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045
MARCH, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, v. 2, n. 1, p. 71-87, 1991. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
MARCH, J. G.; OLSEN, J. P. Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press, 1989.
MARGETTS, H.; NAUMANN, A. Government as a platform: what can Estonia show the world? Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 2017. (Working Paper). Disponível em: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/government-as-a-platform-what-can-estonia-show-the-world/. Accessed on: June 2, 2026.
MAZZUCATO, M. Mission economy: a moonshot guide to changing capitalism. New York: Harper Business, 2021.
MAZZUCATO, M.; COLLINGTON, R. The big con: how the consulting industry weakens our businesses, infantilizes our governments, and warps our economies. London: Allen Lane, 2023.
MERTON, R. K. Social theory and social structure. Enlarged ed. New York: Free Press, 1968.
MILLER, D. The Icarus paradox: how exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. New York: Harper Business, 1990.
MOORE, M. H. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.
MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A.; JOHNSTON, M. (ed.). Transitions to good governance: creating virtuous circles of anti-corruption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439154
NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001
PIERSON, P. Politics in time: history, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841080
POLANYI, M. The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
POLLITT, C. Time, policy, management: governing with the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
POST, C.; SARALA, R.; GATRELL, C.; PRESCOTT, J. E. Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, v. 57, n. 2, p. 351-376, 2020. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549
SCHEIN, E. H. Organizational culture and leadership. 4. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
SENGE, P. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
SILBERMAN, B. S. Cages of reason: the rise of the rational state in France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
SKOCPOL, T. Bringing the state back in: strategies of analysis in current research. In: EVANS, P. B.; RUESCHEMEYER, D.; SKOCPOL, T. (ed.). Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 3-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628283.002
STEIN, E. W. Organizational memory: review of concepts and recommendations for management. International Journal of Information Management, v. 15, n. 1, p. 17-32, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-4012(94)00003-C
STOKER, G. Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration, v. 36, n. 1, p. 41-57, 2006. DOI: 10.1177/0275074005282583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583
SUTTON, R. I.; STAW, B. M. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 40, n. 3, p. 371-384, 1995. DOI: 10.2307/2393788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
SYDOW, J. et al. Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, v. 34, n. 4, p. 689-709, 2009. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.44885978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok689
TEECE, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, v. 28, n. 13, p. 1319-1350, 2007. DOI: 10.1002/smj.640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
TEECE, D. J.; PISANO, G.; SHUEN, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, v. 18, n. 7, p. 509-533, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
THELEN, K. How institutions evolve: the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790997
TORRACO, R. J. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, v. 4, n. 3, p. 356-367, 2005. DOI: 10.1177/1534484305278283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
VENKATARAMAN, N.; GRANT, J. H. Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: a critique and proposal. Academy of Management Review, v. 11, n. 1, p. 71-87, 1986. DOI: 10.2307/258332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258332
WALSH, J. P.; UNGSON, G. R. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, v. 16, n. 1, p. 57-91, 1991. DOI: 10.2307/258607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258607
WEICK, K. E. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995.
WENGER, E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
WHETTEN, D. A. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, v. 14, n. 4, p. 490-495, 1989. DOI: 10.2307/258554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258554
ZOLLO, M.; WINTER, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, v. 13, n. 3, p. 339-351, 2002. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Karol Jefessom Alves de Sousa
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the sharing of the work with proper acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal;
Authors are authorized to enter into separate, additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., posting in an institutional repository or publishing it as a book chapter), provided that authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly acknowledged, and that the work is adapted to the template of the respective repository;
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal websites) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may lead to productive exchanges and increase the impact and citation of the published work (see The Effect of Open Access);
Authors are responsible for correctly providing their personal information, including name, keywords, abstracts, and other relevant data, thereby defining how they wish to be cited. The journal’s editorial board is not responsible for any errors or inconsistencies in these records.
PRIVACY POLICY
The names and email addresses provided to this journal will be used exclusively for the purposes of this publication and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
Note: All content of the work is the sole responsibility of the author and the advisor.
